Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Aldergrove Airport

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further measures for the convenience of business and other passengers are proposed to be taken at Aldergrove Airport.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): Later this year work is due to start on a £10 million airport development scheme to provide Belfast Airport with greatly improved airside and passenger facilities.

Mr. Powell: Welcoming the improvements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may I ask him whether he will see that the whole weight of the Northern Ireland Office is put behind the request for a thorough re-examination of the necessity and methods of the security checks which are employed at Aldergrove and on all the routes between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, as these are gravely prejudicial to business and other economic contacts between the parts of the Kingdom and are in themselves illogical and in part unnecessary?

Mr. Carter: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in this subject and, of course, that of his hon. Friends. The Northern Ireland Office, like him and his hon. Friends, takes an acute interest in the subject. It is a subject that is under continuing review. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to look at the matter in considerable earnestness.

Energy Policy

Mr. Craig: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on energy policy both as to the immediate future and the long term, having regard to the high cost of present sources which disadvantage the people, industry and commerce of Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): This is a large and complex subject, but I would reiterate the Government's concern that electricity and gas prices in Northern Ireland are now the highest in the United Kingdom. I am considering a report on the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. The problems facing the gas industry are the subject of a separate study by the British Gas Corporation which will not be completed for some months.
Our overall energy policy must be largely geared to an assessment of the prospects for these two industries and the scope for cost reduction, but future policy must await the findings and conclusions of these studies.

Mr. Craig: Does the Minister agree that this is a matter of extreme urgency and that the problem arises out of Northern Ireland's dependency on expensive oil? Will he make an examination of the feasibility of the greater use of natural gas, bearing in mind the enormous increase in fuel costs of recent time? Has he noted that the Quigley Report records that since 1972, taking the index base of 100, costs soared in Northern Ireland to 317 in 1975, against an equivalent of 249·5 in England, that for gas in Northern Ireland the domestic consumer pays 45p per therm as against 14·35p per therm in Great Britain, and that industrial consumers in Northern Ireland pay 30p per therm as against 5·16p in Great Britain?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is giving a lot of information rather than seeking it.

Mr. Craig: I am asking the Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether he is aware of the great discrepancy. Will the Minister


note the enormous burden that this presents to Northern Ireland industry, and the consequent effect on employment?

Mr. Concannon: I am very much aware of this. Putting the matter the other way around, gas prices in Northern Ireland are three times what they are, on average, in the rest of Great Britain. The cost of electricity for the domestic consumer in Northern Ireland is 20 per cent. higher and for the industrial consumer it is 50 per cent. higher. That is why I am sometimes worried about previous decisions that have left us with this problem in Northern Ireland. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the Quigley Report, but this has some financial connotations. We are doing what we can in that respect.

Mr. Thorne: Will my hon. Friend indicate what publicity is being given in Northern Ireland to the code of practice of the Department of Energy in regard to the fuel disconnections that seem likely to arise this winter in view of the very high prices to which he has referred?

Mr. Concannon: As I think Northern Ireland Members know, on fuel prices in Northern Ireland this winter we have made a special case. We have this for gas prices as well, due to those prices being, as I have said, three times the average of those in the rest of Great Britain. However, there is quite a lot of publicity about this matter and the guidelines appertain to my Department as well as to others.

Mr. Powell: In considering the future of the gas industry—it is unfortunate that there is still a delay in the appearance of the report—will the Government bear in mind that in Great Britain areas which cannot, for physical reasons, be served with natural gas enjoy the benefits of a tariff which takes into account the costs of natural gas? Will the Minister seriously consider the application of the same principle to the analogous situation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Concannon: The whole problem is that this is a matter for the British Gas Corporation within Great Britain. When I look back, I find that this is one of the decisions about which I worry. In Northern Ireland, this matter is to a great extent still in private hands, or in local government hands. With the price of oil quad

rupling over the last few years, the fact that Northern Ireland depends on oil-based gas, has meant that the Province is at a great disadvantage. However, the gas study will be coming along, and this will be one of the things that we shall be looking at.

Mr. Farr: What progress is being made in the search for natural gas and natural oil under the offshore waters of Northern Ireland, especially in the Irish Sea area?

Mr. Concannon: We should be only too delighted if we could find natural gas off the shores of Northern Ireland so that we could enjoy that supply. However, such a supply has not yet been found and we have to make do with the existing capacity, bearing in mind the capacity that has been planned and is still in construction.

Police Complaints Board

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the Police Complaints Board for Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): The Order in Council which will establish the Police Complaints Board is expected to be made shortly. Thereafter, members of the board can be appointed. The names of the members will be made public in due course.

Mr. Dunlop: I am sure that the Minister will concede and agree that the members of the board will all be civilians—people without any experience of police work. I am sure that he will also agree that the terms of the draft order provide that the civilian board will be able to over-rule the Chief Constable, and that the Chief Constable is held in the highest esteem by the Government in Northern Ireland and by the majority of the people. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that a situation in which a civilian board may over-rule the Chief Constable is worthy of being described by what has become a famous phrase over the past year, namely, a thundering disgrace?

Mr. Speaker: That was a thundering long question.

Mr. Dunn: I hope that my reply will give no thunder. I believe that the proposals are in the interests of those who


serve in the constabulary. If an independent board is seen to be operating independently, it will be to the advantage of those in the force. It is clear that for some time there have been questions about inquiries or investigations undertaken by the police into accusations of maladministration or malpractice. I believe that in that respect the complete independence of all members of the board will be helpful. I must correct one wrong impression. The board will be able, in limited circumstances, to direct that an inquiry be held, or that further consideration be given to any complaint that is made to it, but it will not be able to over-rule the Chief Constable in any other sector of his operations. "Over-rule" is a strong word.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What consultations will the hon. Gentleman have, and whom will he consult before he appoints the members of the board?

Mr. Dunn: Account will be taken of a number of representations that have already been made to us as to who shall comprise the board. We shall be only too willing to listen to further representations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the invitation and make known his views, which will be taken into account.

Administration

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to bring forward proposals to improve administration in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Government has for devolution in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): The Government's principal aim is to see stable and effective devolved government in Northern Ireland accepted and supported by both sides of the community. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland want reconciliation and agreement, and that it can be reached.
The responsibility now lies with the politicians in Northern Ireland to demonstrate their willingness to work together in the interests of Northern Ireland.

Given the will, problems about constitutional forms can, I believe, be resolved.
I noted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) for administrative devolution in Northern Ireland, and I shall be interested to see whether it attracts the necessary widespread acceptance throughout both parts of the community.
Until devolved government becomes possible, direct rule will continue, and I am constantly considering ways to improve its responsiveness and decisiveness. I am currently examining the scope for increased consultation between Government and district councils and councillors.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that despite all his efforts to improve the quality of government in Northern Ireland, which we all appreciate, the system as it stands fails to provide satisfaction for the citizen and burdens Parliament and Ministers with matters with which they would not be concerned elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Is there now any real reason for delaying the start of a process of returning administrative authority to elected representatives in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mason: I shall be interested to know in a little more detail the hon. Gentleman's ideas about administrative devolution. As I indicated in my initial reply, I have undertaken a special study of how best we can help to bridge the gap between my ministerial team, Her Majesty's Government, the 26 councils and the many local councillors. I hope to be making a statement on that fairly soon.

Mr. Gow: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is rather anomalous that at a time when the House is debating devolution to Scotland and Wales there are no proposals before it in respect of devolution to Northern Ireland? Does he also think that there is merit in the suggestion put forward from the Opposition Benches that he might set up a Council of State in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mason: I have not seen any proposals about a Council of State. The words are used loosely and glibly, but I have seen no detailed proposals. As for fresh proposals for devolved government in Northern Ireland emanating from Her Majesty's Government, although we


make quite clear that it is our aim I must warn the House, and especially the hon. Gentleman, that I am not in favour of dramatic initiatives or impositions, or of trying to force the people together. I hope that the House and all parties concerned have learned those lessons. I hope that there will be proposals coming from the political parties concerned that will command widespread acceptance throughout the Community. If they are brought forward, I shall be prepared to step in and help.

Mr. Fitt: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a recent speech by the Most Reverend Dr. Daly, the Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, in which he requested the British Government to take further steps to try to resolve the admittedly difficult deadlock in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is no great demand for a better administration as put forward by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), and that the only hopeful form of devolved institution in Northern Ireland would be a legislative assembly commanding the respect of both communities in Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend not believe that it may now be advantageous to have further discussions with the poltical parties in Northern Ireland to see whether it is possible to find some form of agreement?

Mr. Mason: On my hon. Friend's latter point, I see no movement yet. I have seen no movement during the time I have been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I should like to be encouraged in that respect, and I await some proposals from the parties concerned. I read and heard the comments of the member of the cloth, speaking from the Republic, about a lack of initiative from Her Majesty's Government but, of course, he proffered no solutions. He was adequately replied to by the Foreign Minister of the Republic. I was pleased to hear that Bishop Daly denounced the activities of the IRA.

Mr. Neave: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for a long time we have been warning that there could be a political no man's land in Northern Ireland, and that there are dangers in such a situation? The hon. Member for Antrim South (Mr. Molyneaux) has been making

his contribution and we shall make ours in the form of plans for a Council of State. Is it not wrong for the Government to say that they will take no political initiative in Northern Ireland? Will they publish a White Paper setting out their plans and the prospects for the future government for Northern Ireland over, for example, the next five years?

Mr. Mason: No, I do not think that I would consider seriously at this stage the production of a White Paper. I should not like to say emphatically and dogmatically that there will be no political initiatives from Her Majesty's Government, but I am not satisfied that the time is now righ or opportune.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people will welcome his statement that there can be no administrative devolution unless there is proper power sharing in questions of administration? That will allay many fears that the suggestion might have been a backdoor move to the situation that existed at the time of Stormont. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that many people in Northern Ireland do not seem to appreciate that initiatives at a political level include not only the work of political institutions and forums but, for example, my right hon. Friend's remarkable victory in retaining REP for Northern Ireland and the imaginative proposals of the Quigley Report, all of which will help create the stable conditions in which we hope that politicians themselves will be prepared to come and talk?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that question. First, it is essential that in any form of devolving government it must be understood from the outset that it shall be a partnership between the two communities. Second, if direct rule is seen to benefit the people as a whole—members of both communities—thereafter the people may not yearn for change, especially change for change's sake.

Donegall Pass Housing Programme

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will announce the commencement date for the infill scheme relating to the Donegall Pass housing programme; and if he will give the date on which he hopes to issue


vesting orders for the entire Donegall Pass area.

Mr. Carter: It is for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to decide when to begin the infill scheme. When a vesting application is received from the Housing Executive in respect of the Donegall Pass redevelopment areas as a whole my Department will deal with it as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that the Donegall Pass area is one of the most derelict areas in the whole of Belfast and that his predecessor with responsibility for housing gave a commitment to a deputation that I led that the redevelopment scheme would begin early in 1977 and the infill scheme at the end of 1976? Is he also aware that his answer will cause great concern to those in that area who have tried to help themselves?

Mr. Carter: This is a very complex matter, as are all schemes of redevelopment in Belfast. But as I understand it, the Housing Executive hopes to come forward with a request for the vesting procedure some time in March. As soon as that has been examined by public inquiry, we can go ahead with redevelopment.

Mr. Wm. Ross: When does the Minister expect that the detailed changes resulting from the change in emphasis in housing expenditure in Northern Ireland will be published so that people may know what is entailed?

Mr. Carter: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means. The change in emphasis has been announced—more towards redevelopment and rehabilitation in Belfast. As a consequence, some areas in Northern Ireland without a pressing housing problem will have their housing programmes slightly diminished. But that is as far as we have gone at present.

Suppression of Terrorism (Conference)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to be present, or to be represented, at the 59th Session of the Committee of Foreign Ministers of the Council of Europe on 27th January, when the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism is opened for signature.

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. The United Kingdom will be represented by a Foreign: and Commonwealth Office Minister.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In a week that has seen deplorably spineless action by the French Government in regard to terrorism, is not this convention ever more important, and would not the presence of a Northern Ireland Minister at the signing, which I appreciate is essentially a Foreign and Commonwealth Office matter, encourage the Government of the Republic of Eire also to sign fully, so demonstrating clearly that it is joining others in rooting out terrorism in all parts of the island of Ireland?

Mr. Mason: We are straying into the Foreign Office field rather than the question of my own personal responsibilities, but I hope—I have noticed the motions on the Order Paper—that the House will not be misled into feeling that the convention has been denounced because of the activities of the French in the recent terrorist case. The convention itself has not yet come into being. The signing is not until 27th January, and we shall have to wait for at least three Council of Europe countries to ratify after that.

Mr. Marten: Under paragraph 5 of the Command Paper which we debated on Monday, did the Ministers of the Common Market not agree to do everything they could to suppress terrorism? Ireland is a member of the Common Market.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but that Government is not yet bound by the Suppression of Terrorism Convention. The signatures will be called for on 27th January and we intend to sign and to ratify. We hope that every other country in the Council of Europe, including the Republic, will do so. In doing so, we shall take a major step forward in the capture of terrorists within Northern Ireland. Those that have fled to the South will have no political argument for remaining there.

Security

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mason: I explained to the House in detail the Government's policy for dealing with violence during the debate on 17th December. Since then there have been a number of attacks against members of the security forces resulting in the deaths of one policeman and three soldiers. In the same period five civilians have been killed. I can assure the House that the security forces will continue to deal firmly with violence from whatever quarter it arises during 1977. In the year that has just ended the security forces achieved very real success in bringing the terrorists and gangsters before the courts. 1,276 people were charged with terrorist offences—241 of them for murder or attempted murder.

Mr. Jessel: What value does the right hon. Gentleman attach to the peace movement? Will he back the movement more by stepping up measures to catch top terrorists?

Mr. Mason: No one could ask the peace movement people to become involved in capturing the terrorists. Her Majesty's Government have not stepped in either to discourage or to encourage what the peace movement has done. Any official intervention would merely give succour and aid to the extremists who would like to see the peace people denounced. I see no necessity to give them that sort of propaganda weapon. But since the peace movement began it has certainly helped the community of Northern Ireland to feel safer and to co-operate with the police. Since it began there has been an increase of at least 12 per cent. in the use of the confidential telephone in assisting the police with their inquiries.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend's reference to the apprehension of top terrorists was addressed to him rather than to the peace movement? We are glad that our point of view has been accepted to the extent of the prospect of five conrate platoons for the UDF, but when will they be ready for action? Are not these 200 full-timers insufficient for the UDR to have an effective operational

capacity by day? Is it the Government's policy to match withdrawals of Regular troops with increases in the combatant strength of the UDR?

Mr. Mason: It is not for me to determine what the Secretary of State for Defence will do as he gradually thinks about the redeployment of units, and I do not think that he would necessarily match the rundown of the British Army to the increase in conrates. I do not know when they will be ready. It will take time to recruit them and screen them. After all, these will be professional UDR men. As for the organisers of violence, on 17th December I said that of those terrorists charged, 18, in our opinion, were organisers of violence. I am glad to say that another two in that range were charged last week.

Mr. Goodhart: As the right hon. Gentleman recently had intimate knowledge of the Ministry of Defence, will he assure us that the recent spate of defence cuts will not lead to an increase in the frequency of emergency tours for British soldiers in Northern Ireland and that there will normally be a 12-month gap between such tours unless the security situation sharply deteriorates?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give the categorical assurance that the hon. Member seeks, but he will recognise that running down the force strength in Northern Ireland by another 500—equivalent to a unit—means that there will be a slower turn-round of the use of forces from BAOR and the United Kingdom land forces, and that therefore they will remain away from Northern Ireland a little longer than in the past before going on tour.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, important as the security measures are—both sides of the House regard them as very important—they are not so much a measure of success as a measure of the intractability of the problem we are facing together? Difficult as are new initiatives, as my right hon. Friend said, the continuing slaughter is a measure of the problem that we are failing to solve. Does my right hon. Friend agree that individual initiatives such as those taken recently by Opposition Members are increasingly important, and that all the groupings concerned with the problem should be


brought together so that they can talk to one another across the table and put forward their initiatives to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend has uttered my sentiments in better words than I could have used. There are seven political parties in Northern Ireland which share responsibility for the absence of devolved government there. The tide of devolved government will leave Northern Ireland behind as Scotland and Wales get their Administrations. Those parties have the opportunity—I hope they will take it—to cross the sectarian divide, shake hands and come to an agreement on the type of devolved government they want. I am prepared to step in, but I want first to see widespread acceptance by the parties concerned.

Mr. Neave: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's attitude to firmer security policy in Northern Ireland, but will he recollect what I said on 17th December about the need for countering propaganda from terrorist sources and for a concerted campaign against it? Will he say whether he had useful talks recently with the broadcasting authorities on these matters?

Mr. Mason: I am fully aware of the propaganda war between the security forces and the Provisional IRA, the UVF and the UFF. I had an interesting and fascinating conversation after dinner. I hope that the BBC enjoyed it as much as I did.

Royal Ulster Constabulary (Pay)

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present position of the £6 per week pay rise for full-time members of the RUC

Mr. Dunn: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th November 1976 to one of his Written Questions, and also to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 22nd December 1976 in reply to a Written Question from the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn).

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the members of the RUC are doing a very good job in

Northern Ireland and that the recent threat to their wives and families by the IRA in County Armagh calls for the Government's wholehearted support of the RUC? Why has the Police Reserve been able to get a pay rise while those who are working full-time have not?

Mr. Dunn: I am pleased to confirm that all my colleagues believe that the members of the RUC and others who serve the RUC have been doing a first-class job on behalf of the Province. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in any negotiations on police pay we have followed the principle of parity. There are many difficulties when parity is applied directly in Northern Ireland, but if we depart from the main principle we run into more difficulties. Special circumstances arise in relation to the Police Reserve, with which we have had to cope. The part-time reserve may have had some advantage; whether it has depends on the question of interpretation.

Terrorism (Fatalities and Injuries)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were killed and injured as a result of criminal activity in Northern Ireland during 1976.

Mr. Mason: A total of 296 people were killed and 2,632 injured in Northern Ireland in 1976 as a direct result of the disturbances.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the running total of sectarian murders during the 1970s? Does he consider that the leaders of Northern Ireland opinion are sufficiently willing to condemn sectarian violence, no matter from which side of the sectarian divide it originates?

Mr. Mason: There are always included in the figures quite a number of sectarian and inter-factional killings committed by the extremists and the far ends of the communities in Northern Ireland. The figures for sectarian and inter-factional assassinations are as follows: in 1972 there were 122; in 1973 there were 87; in 1974 there were 95; in 1975 there were 144; and in 1976 there were 120.

Mr. Townsend: Will the Secretary of State say what political constraints there are on the security forces in regard to


the number of random checks, house checks, cordon searches and searches carried out in Northern Ireland in pursuit of terrorists?

Mr. Mason: There are no political restraints on the operations of Her Majesty's security forces, but they have to recognise, as does everyone else in Northern Ireland, that they have to operate within the law.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I welcome the increasing success of the RUC, evidenced by the figures that the Secretary of State gave earlier of arrests and charges. I recognise the statistical difficulty, but is it possible for him to give more information to the House and the country about convictions and sentences?

Mr. Mason: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's request and see how best I can furnish the information in the Official Report or other media. I am always prepared to give as much information as possible.

Meat Industry Employment Scheme

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the operation of the Meat Industry Employment Scheme.

Mr. Dunn: Yes. The Meat Industry Employment Scheme has enabled Northern Ireland beef and pig processing plants to compete successfully for supplies of cattle and pigs, thereby maintaining employment in the industry despite the differential between the United Kingdom and Irish Republic green pounds.

Mr. Ross: The Northern Ireland Members welcome the Meat Industry Employment Scheme, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of the pressing problems experienced in the export of live animals from Northern Ireland to Great Britain? Will not the present arrangement encourage some persons to smuggle animals from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic and export them, apparently legally, to Great Britain? Does the Minister agree that the best way to overcome the problem would be to give the same facilities to the live export trade from Northern Ireland as are given to the dead trade?

Mr. Dunn: No, I do not agree that that is the best way to deal with the problem.

The primary objective of the Meat Industry Employment Scheme is to protect employment, not to stop the activities of smugglers. We do not feel justified in extending the scheme to cattle shippers or the live export trade, or to make any particular arrangement for financial support to shipping companies. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that smuggling has been a pastime for many years. Money is not always the primary factor.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my hon. Friend accept my sympathy? In addition to the vanishing pig he has a reappearing pig, in the Ulster context. Both in Ulster and on the mainland the pigmeat industry and the farmers are in serious difficulties. I appreciate what is being done to renegotiate the individual MCAs. I understand that there is a proposal for emergency aid of 50p per score. Some of us think that this immediate action should be taken, in view of the bureaucracy of the Common Market. Will my hon. Friend support his right hon. Friend in considerations of that nature?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend brings to my attention proposals that have not yet been confirmed by those who hold agricultural briefs on behalf of the Government. I agree that there have been many problems in the pig sector, not least in terms of the high cost of importing food. Whether these problems can be resolved in the way suggested by my hon. Friend, I am not certain, but any financial support must make a contribution to regional problems in the industry.

Trade Unions

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of trade unions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Concannon: Northern Ireland Ministers and officials are in constant touch with representatives of the trade unions in Northern Ireland and meetings are arranged when the need arises.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade union movement in Northern Ireland has a long and outstanding record of campaigning against sectarianism and violence, and campaigning for peace with equality of opportunity in such areas as employment, education and


housing? Will my hon. Friend therefore give the trade union movement every opportunity to make its influence felt throughout the whole community by, for example, appointing trade union representatives to public bodies such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive?

Mr. Concannon: My colleagues and I recognise the contribution made by trade unions in Northern Ireland. In view of the background of my colleagues, it would be rather amiss if we did not. I do not know what talks my hon. Friend had with the trade union movement over there but I am rather surprised at the length of the latter part of his question, because in the summer I asked the trade union movement to supply me with a list of trade union members who could be appointed to various committees. I understand that the list arrived in the Office only on 29th December.
The Housing Executive has a board of only nine members. Three of those are appointed, by statute, from the Housing Council, which is made up of the district councillors. One of the members is the chairman and one is the vice-chairman. The Mayor of Belfast is also appointed to the board. It is not now my responsibility, but in the context of which my hon. Friend was speaking it left me three members to appoint to cover geographical regions and to take into consideration age and politics. At one time I was left looking for a yonng female SDLP trade union councillor who was from west of the Bann. It is not always possible to give trade unionists a seat on public bodies just because they are trade unionists. They must represent other interests as well.

Mr. Craig: Will the hon. Gentleman at an early date meet representatives of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, which is the largest union in the gas industry in Northern Ireland and whose members are gravely concerned about the future of the industry?

Mr. Concannon: I am continually meeting trade union groups. I do not think that anybody who has written to me asking for a meeting has not been accorded an interview with either myself or one of my colleagues.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage the co-operation of the whole community in the law enforcement activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Dunn: The development of the schemes for local police centres and district liaison committees, together with the continuing work of the part-time Reserve, illustrate the importance that we attach to local involvement in policing and public identification with the police. These initiatives are complemented by publicity campaigns designed to encourage the support and co-operation of the public.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the Minister agree that the peace movement has given the Government a new initiative to gain community support? What effective and sustained policing is now taking place in minority urban areas? What attempts are being made to increase recruiting to the Royal Ulster Constabulary from those areas? Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to local community assistance to the police in those areas?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman asks for specific figures about recruitment. Perhaps he will forgive me if I ask that he gives notice of this request. I should prefer to give precise figures rather than to make estimates or give approximate figures.
The work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in community relations, and the influence of the peace movement, including their impact on the minority community, have considerably lessened tensions in areas which previously caused us concern. The constabulary itself recognises no area where it cannot go, but there are realistic problems that must never be ignored. We are making serious attempts to assist the police in the full discharge of their duties in these areas. There are complex problems, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. His supplementary question went little further than the Question on the Order Paper.

Prisoners (Segregation)

Mr. Carson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now consider the segregation of Loyalist and Republican prisoners as a result of the recent disturbances in the Crumlin Road Prison; and how many prisoners and wardens suffered injury in the disturbances.

Mr. Concannon: No. In the recent incidents in Her Majesty's Prison, Belfast, which may well have been stage-managed, three prison officers sustained significant injuries, one being detained in hospital. No prisoner suffered more than minor abrasions or bruising, and none required hospital treatment.

Mr. Carson: Will the Minister confirm that recently poison was found near a male prisoner's cell, and that certain drinks were taken away for analysis? Is he aware that it is impossible to have integration in Northern Ireland in education, housing, social life, and, indeed, at places of employment? Does he agree that it is impossible, too, to have integration in prisons which house violent men convicted of very serious crimes and men on remand charged with very serious crimes?

Mr. Concannon: Segregation in the prison at Belfast took place only in 1972. We are ending that. The prisoners should realise that it is in their own interests, and for their own safety whilst they are in prison, that they observe prison rules and refrain from violence to other prisoners and to my staff.
I have no comments to make on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions. This incident has not been brought to my attention.

Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Member recognise that while my colleagues and I have steadily supported the abolition of "special category" the Secretary of State retains responsibility for the personal safety and welfare of persons confined in Her Majesty's prisons, whatever methods he finds necessary to secure that safety?

Mr. Concannon: I agree. This is what is happening. This is why I have to report today that the prison service and I believe that these incidents were pretty

well stage-managed, judging by the size of the bruises and other injuries. My prison staff are doing all that can be expected of them. Three of them were injured in these disturbances. Two are still off sick.

TUC

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.

Mr. Blaker: Since the TUC and the Prime Minister have each recently entertained pillars of the Soviet establishment in the form of Mr. Shelepin and Mr. Ponomarev, would it not be useful for them to get a different point of view by entertaining Mr. Bukovsky? Will the Prime Minister now improve on the equivocal answer that he gave me on Tuesday and say clearly that he will issue an invitation to Mr. Bukovsky, who I understand is in London today, to meet him so that he can hear from him at first hand how the Soviet Union is flouting the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Gould: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he indicate when interest rates will be allowed to fall substantially?

The Prime Minister: I shall not be able to give such an indication. I think that it will depend on a number of matters, including the sale of gilt-edged securities and other such issues. I expect to see—I think it is generally expected—a fall in interest rates over the next 12 months.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware how very disappointed we are with his peremptory reply? He will be going to Belgrade in 1977 to consider what has happened under the Helsinki Agreements, and one would have thought that it would help him very much to assess what has happened if he met a person who had had experience of living


in Soviet Russia during the currency of those agreements.
I wish, in addition, to put a specific point to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that The Times was not published this morning because of the action of a number of printers who refused to print because they disagreed with the content of a report? Will he condemn that industrial action wholeheartedly, because it constitutes a censorship of the Press?

The Prime Minister: I understand, if the Daily Telegraph is correct, that the right hon. Lady had a rather coy meeting with Mr. Bukovsky to which no publicity was given. I suppose I am to join in this matter. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady, when she goes to China, will be associating with the sort of people whom her hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) condemns.
I have no need to go on record about these matters. The Government's position on the Helsinki Agreement and issues relating to the Soviet Government are well understood. I do not have to meet anybody to get my views clear about them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug".] Of course it is humbug, and we know it. but that is how the Opposition regard this 15-minute period.
On the subject of The Times, I do not set myself up as an instant pundit. The freedom of the Press depends on accurate reporting and printing and the capacity to print everything that is put, provided that it is accurate. Although The Times has not appeared—and so far as I know nobody knows the views of those who refused to allow it to publish, and I do not intend to judge the matter— I noticed that the Guardian managed to print the story and to comment on it in a way that met with general satisfaction.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that that is one of the most disgraceful and undignified replies ever given by a Prime Minister in this House? It was also in certain parts silly. I must tell the Prime Minister that I did meet Mr. Bukovsky and that it was an extremely interesting meeting, certainly not "coy" as the Prime Minister suggested—which was a stupid comment to make. I repeat that it was an extremely interesting meet

ing. The Prime Minister would do well to see and hear first hand evidence of fact. I little thought that I would ever hear a Prime Minister uphold the censorship of the Press, because that is what he has done.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is wrong on all counts. I have no intention of pursuing publicity by seeing people if there is no need to do so. I am quite clear about and well aware of the position in the Soviet Union. I have probably done a little more than has the right hon. Lady to obtain the release of people from the Soviet Union. These matters are not always achieved—the right hon. Lady may one day find this out, although I am beginning to doubt it—by public gestures. They are best achieved privately, and there have been a number of illustrations of that fact.
As for The Times newspaper, if we are talking of the freedom of the Press and the freedom of the Press is thought to be in question. so is the freedom of the individual. Some of us who have suffered at the hands of the Press know what that means. Freedom of the Press apparently means, as I have had occasion to find out in the not-too-distant past. freedom to print inaccurate and totally false information. even though the Press is told beforehand that the information is inaccurate and false.
Before we go too deeply into this matter, let us find out the facts. As far as I am concerned, there is to be no censorship. If Opposition Members ever throw aside their party hats they will well know that there will be no censorship and that nobody will defend censorship. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are".] If Opposition Members believe that, I leave it to the country to judge, because I believe that my reputation will stand against theirs.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are genuinely puzzled by his tone in answering questions on these matters affecting the Soviet Union? Is he further aware that Mr. Bukovsky earlier today made to me the significant point that human rights in the Soviet Union do not involve just the occasional writer or dissident, or scientist, or musician, but affect the Soviet worker? Therefore, is there not a real rôle that the TUC could play in this regard, and


could not the Prime Minister help in persuading it to do so?

The Prime Minister: That matter is not in issue, nor does it arise from the supplementary question that I was asked. I was asked whether I intended to see Mr. Bukovsky, and I replied on that point. I do not intend to see Mr. Bukovsky, although if the opportunity arose and it seemed purposeful, I would do so. But I do not have to meet Mr. Bukovsky to put my views on record. When we go to Belgrade, we shall be following up the Helsinki issues and agreements, as I have made clear in the House time after time. The Soviet Union knows where we stand on these matters. I do not need to meet any private individual to strengthen my own convictions.

CITY OF LONDON

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the City of London.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Rost: Is the Prime Minister aware that the City, our creditors, and the country would like to know how the Prime Minister's disastrous failure as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer qualifies him to assume responsibilities over the existing discredited Chancellor of the Exchequer? As the Prime Minister, along with everybody else, has lost confidence in the present Chancellor, should the right hon. Gentleman not now appoint somebody else rather than himself to do the job?

The Prime Minister: I hesitate to say so, in light of the atmosphere this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman should not believe all that he reads in newspaper headlines, nor should he believe all the mischief-making articles that may appear on these matters. The situation is quite clear. Thanks to the Government's measures, the IMF loan, and the safety net, the frenetic attitude over sterling is now likely to disappear. Sterling will be much more stable over the next 12 months. Therefore, I wish to focus the country's attention not on the issue of sterling, which is not a real issue at this time, but on the question of the way

in which British industry is to become as productive, efficient and export-minded as possible. To that end I have been invited to take the chair at the next NEDC meeting, and I shall do so. I intend to make a number of industrial visits, and I shall visit factories that are doing well in the export drive. The responsibility of Ministers is in no way altered or diminished, but I intend to try to focus attention on this real issue so that we may overcome inflation and unemployment. That is the story, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the real world—a world which Opposition Members do not inhabit—his reply will be widely welcomed? Will he say what impact the repayment of the special deposits announced at lunchtime will have on the rates of interest paid by industrialists on their investments and on domestic interest rates paid by those who have mortgages?

The Prime Minister: The adjustment made today is a technical one. It is no particular indication of the future level of interest rates. I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely, that I expect to see this declining over the next 12 months. Mortgage interest rates would benefit from such a decline.

Mr. Cormack: Will the Prime Minister go to the City at the earliest opportunity and call at the offices of The Times, and there give a less equivocal statement in support of a free Press than he gave in the House a few moments ago? Does he not realise that a free Press implies freedom to print inaccuracies and to enable people to reply to them?

The Prime Minister: What I realise is that the Opposition are trying to pursue a party point.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on the democratic process made by the Secretary of State for Energy on 10th December at Bristol University represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon.


Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on 11th January.

Mr. Winterton: Will the Prime Minister accept that the Secretary of State for Energy has defended the place of Marxists in the Labour Party, while the Prime Minister has on several occasions attacked extremist infiltrators in the Government party? Who are these infiltrators if they are not Marxists? Indeed, what are they?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear the answer that I gave a little earlier. I shall repeat it. My right hon. Friend's speech raised no issues of Government policy.

Mr. Buchan: Can my right hon. Friend enlighten me to what aspect of Marx Opposition Members object? Is it the Right-wing philosophy of the German Hegel, the French sociology of Saint-Simon, or the labour of value theory of the British Adam Smith and Riccardo—both classic capitalist economists?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the Opposition were thinking of a combination of Harpo and Groucho Marx.

UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS

Mr. Norman Lamont: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the plans by the Union of Post Office Workers to cut communications links with South Africa all next week.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I understand that the union has today written about its decision to the Post Office, which is asking it to reconsider its proposed action.

Mr. Lamont: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any interference by the union with mail will be an offence against Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953 and will constitute a misdemeanour liable to a fine or imprisonment? Has he any information about whether the Post Office Engineering Union, whose members control telex and STD calls, will support the Union of Post Office Workers, as that could ensure a total boycott? Is the right hon. Gentleman

aware that there are indications that a substantial number of the members of the Union of Post Office Workers do not support what is being proposed by their executive and feel that they have been inadequately consulted?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there is widespread public concern about and objection to basic services being interfered with for purely political reasons, and a feeling that if the principle is conceded there will be no end to the disruption and inconvenience that the public may be asked to bear? Will he use his influence to ask Mr. Jackson to stop this foolish and pointless action?

Mr. Valley: I shall consider getting in touch with the Post Office Corporation, but I understand that the Union of Post Office Workers informed the Post Office only during the morning, and I have not yet had a chance to consult the Chairman of the Board. I shall consider doing that.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposed action would be contrary to the Post Office Acts. That would be a matter for the courts to decide, and it would be premature for me at this stage to take action. But he should know—I am sure that he does—that this is not the first time that action of this kind has been taken. Action was taken by the Union of Post Office Workers to suspend the transmission of mail to France prior to the French nuclear tests in 1973, and, as far as I understand it, the then Conservative Government did not take any action, and certainly not the action the hon. Gentleman has been urging on me today.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the dangerous situation where the employer of these men is also the prosecuting authority? Is it not time that these two roles were separated, even if it required legislation to do so, because it is putting too great a burden on an employer that he should prosecute his own men?

Mr. Varley: I do not think that the question whether the responsibility for taking action against those proposing this industrial action rests on the Post Office Corporation is a matter for me. It is something which should be considered, but I do not think that it is relevant to the specific issue today.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman come off his pedestal of caution? To many of us, there is an agonising choice where methods of attacking apartheid are proposed which are, if that is possible, even more reprehensible than apartheid itself. If the Government allow this action to succeed next week, their authority will have finally crumbled and collapsed.

Mr. Varley: It is not a question of anyone being on a pedestal. The Government will look at the situation closely. I have already said that I shall consult and be in close touch with the Post Office Corporation. It is far too premature at this stage to comment on the situation. In any case, we need to know whether the action is entirely comparable with the situation in 1973. If it is, as I think, that the policy adopted by the then Conservative Government was sensible, we shall follow it.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to urge on his colleagues in the Government that they should take a much more robust official policy towards the appalling attitude of the South African Government? One consequence of a more robust policy by the Government would be to reduce the very natural unofficial measures of which this proposed action by the Union of Post Office Workers is an example.

Mr. Varley: The Government have a very creditable record in our dealings with South Africa. We believe that it is essential, whatever action is proposed by the Union of Post Office Workers, to make clear, as we have done, that we and the people of Britain in general take a clear stand against apartheid and racialism. That is where we stand.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, told the House in 1974 that the Government had taken action, and perhaps I should list it. The action we have taken is fully in line with our international obligations and undertakings. We acted upon the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee's report concerning wages and conditions in South Africa, and we have asked firms in this country to follow the guidelines laid

down then. My right hon. Friend told the House:
In matters of civil trade, and where international obligations do not conflict, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government that commercial trading relations with other countries should be based on considerations of their internal or external policies."—[Official Report, 4th December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1555.]
That is our position, and we have made it clear again and again over the last two and a half years.

Mr. Heffer: As the National Executive of the Union of Post Office Workers has no so-called Marxists on it and is one of the most moderate trade union leaderships in the country, it must be feeling a great deal of frustration, and is, in fact, proposing to take part in action which is on an international trade union scale. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the union is to assist, there is little it can do except take the action it has decided to take?

Mr. Varley: There is no doubt that the union, in common with many other trade unions and many hon. Members, feels very strongly about what is happening in South Africa [HON. MEMBERS: "And in Russia?"] Russia does not arise out of this question but we also feel strongly about events there. As I have already said, it would be premature for me to comment now on the proposed action by the union, but I shall keep closely in touch with the Post Office Corporation, and if necessary I will consult the union.

Mr. Carlisle: May I refer to the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)? Whilst no one is suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should take action at this moment, would he not agree that, in a parliamentary democracy, a strike which is contrary to the law of the country, conducted for a political end, can only be condemned by any Government of any party? Would the right hon. Gentleman say that if the action of the Union of Post Office Workers is contrary to the law it cannot be condoned by the Government and must be condemned by the Government?

Mr. Varley: We will not condone any action which is contrary to the law. I make that plain. But I must tell the hon.


and learned Gentleman—and he has acknowledged that it is early days yet—that, as far as we have ascertained at this stage, the situation is entirely comparable with the situation in 1973, when he was a responsible member of the then Conservative Government.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who loathe apartheid would be happier if such measures were to be taken by the Government rather than that they should be left to individual unions?

Mr. Varley: We have made our views known about apartheid and racialism, and we stand by the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4th December 1974.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is not a question of what the last Government failed to do, or whether the National Executive of the Union of Post Office Workers is Right wing or Left wing, but a question of the rule of law. That is the simple point. Surely any Government should say "We will stand on what the law says" and advise those who are breaking the law that they are putting themselves and their colleagues in peril.

Mr. Varley: I have made plain my views on behalf of the Government. I have stated where we stand in relation to the law. I do not think it necessary for me to comment any further. I ask the House at this stage not to react hastily to this matter. I have said that I will consult the Post Office Corporation and, if necessary, the Union of Post Office Workers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 17TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Water Charges Equalisation Bill.

Motion on the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in Session 1975–76 and the First

Report in Session 1976–77 on "Printing of Parliamentary Papers".

TUESDAY 18TH JANUARY and WEDNESDAY 19TH JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill.

THURSDAY 20TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill, until about 7 o'clock.

Afterwards, debate on the Consultation Document on Transport Policy.

FRIDAY 21ST JANUARY—Consideration of Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 24TH JANUARY—Supply [4th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, when are we to have a debate on foreign affairs? We were promised a debate before Christmas. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a long time since we have had a general debate on foreign affairs and that one is now long overdue?
Secondly, the Bill for direct elections to the European Parliament has not yet appeared and unless it appears soon and is debated it will be impossible to fulfil the undertaking to hold direct elections in 1978. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that he will be able to let us have that Bill and provide time to debate it?
Thirdly, if the dispute at The Times continues, in view of the fundamental nature of the principles involved, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a full statement to the House tomorrow?

Mr. Foot: I have already undertaken, I think in reply to Questions before Christmas, to arrange a foreign affairs debate as soon as possible. I might add that such debates on Supply are well-precedented and there could be opportunities there. We have had a number of foreign policy debates even though there has not been a general debate on foreign affairs over recent months. I hope that we can look at it in that way. I hope that we shall be able to arrange a debate fairly soon.
As for the Bill for direct elections, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.


I believe that we must bring the Bill forward as was stated in the White Paper, but I cannot give a more detailed timetable. Dealing with the right hon. Lady's third point concerning The Times, the best course is to see what the facts are first before passing judgment upon them. I will certainly consider whether it would be wise for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement tomorrow as she has requested.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of what I could almost call the universal disgust in the House over the release of Abu Daoud by the French Government, will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on the suppression of terrorism generally? In the meantime, will he express the Government's condemnation of this craven act on the part of the French?

Mr. Foot: Obviously the question of dealing with terrorism is important, but I cannot promise that we shall have a debate upon it in the near future. As for any question of a Government statement on the matter, that issue should be put to the Foreign Secretary.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members of all parties are amazed and concerned that the Government have so far shown no sign of heeding the words of Mr. Justice Megarry in the High Court judgment last month, when he called on them to right the grievous wrong that had been done to the Banaban people, about which his court was powerless to do anything? Since the moral duty, and even the honour, of the Government is involved, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will make a statement on the subject next week and that arrangements will be made, if necessary, for an early debate?

Mr. Foot: I will see that the subject which the hon. Gentleman has raised is conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement, and subsequent debate—led by either the Chancellor or the Prime Minister in his new capacity—on the serious matter that was leaked last

week in certain newspapers, including the Financial Times, concerning the way in which the General Electric Company had, through various shareholders and directors who own most of the shares, managed to get away with a dividend-busting system which will allow Arnold Weinstock to get something approaching £600,000 clear of tax? In his capacity as a leading Cabinet Minister supposedly wanting the social contract and the incomes policy to work once again in 1977–78, is my right hon. Friend prepared to accept the situation? If not, what does he intend to do about it? Will he arrange for a debate to be held and see to it that the Treasury does not allow this arrangement to continue?

Mr. Foot: That is a matter upon which Questions should be tabled upon the Order Paper. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate upon this issue, important though it may be. Certainly, we wish to do everything we can to sustain the social contract. The way to elicit facts upon this matter is to table Questions.

Mr. Aitken: Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a general debate on the current activities of certain trade unions? Do we not have an extraordinary situation today whereby certain trade union leaders have prevented the publication of a great national newspaper and are also now proposing to prevent the delivery of the Royal Mail? Are not these major abuses of power and should not Parliament be debating them?

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry dealt with the second subject very fully at the Dispatch Box a few minutes ago. Turning to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I suggest that the best course for the House is first to discover what the facts are before going further.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in June of last year he rebuked some of his hon. Friends in picturesque and colourful terms because 70 of us had sent a letter to him suggesting that there should be no timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill? Can he confirm, in the light of Press reports, that the thought has not occurred to him that there should be a timeable motion introduced after one or two days' debate


on the Bill, as has been stated in the Press?

Mr. Foot: I cannot recall the picturesque language that I might have used on that occasion, or whether it would be appropriate once more on this occasion. I believe that we should proceed with the Bill which is now before the House and see what progress we make before such considerations arise.

Mr. Goodhew: Dealing with the latter part of the business for Monday next, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that one of the Government's proposals is to increase the size of the Official Report to something like a 1,000-page telephone directory? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the situation. The proposal is one made by not the Government but by the Services Committee. It is a proposal supported by hon. Members of all parties. It will be for the House to decide whether it wishes to proceed along those lines. That is why the matter is to be debated. It is not a party question and therefore the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood it.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend have another look at the business for next Thursday? Is he not relegating transport to a minor role by providing for the debate on the consultative document to take place from 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. until 10 p.m.? Surely it warrants a full day's debate.

Mr. Foot: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the debate. There is the debate on the Bill until about 7 p.m. We have been seeking, as my hon. Friend and others who have made representations to me over a considerable period know, an opportunity for the debate on general transport matters which we were not able to have earlier. I hope that it may assist the House next Thursday if we take the debate not just for an hour or two after 7 p.m. but extend it at any rate until 12 midnight.

>Mr. Awdry: In view of the serious muddle which has been revealed in connection with the Rent (Agriculture) Act which is causing great problems to practitioners, will the Leader of the House

consider suspending operation of the Act until amending legislation can be brought in? It is a serious matter.

Mr. Foot: I do not believe that it can be done. It would be wrong for any Government to suspend the operation of an Act by such means. We are seeking to discover the speediest way of introducing the amending Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am sure that is the right way for the House to deal with the matter. We are seeking to deal with it on the lines which I mentioned earlier in the week.

Mr. Gould: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the Prayer to annul the Import Duties Order will be debated?

Mr. Foot: I cannot offer time to debate it now. I should have liked to be able to do so. I recognise the importance of the subject. I could offer time upstairs and I will consider further the representations which have been made by my hon. Friend, but I cannot promise time for a debate.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Lord President find time next week for a debate on the harsh provisions of the pre-entry closed shop in view of the peculiar treatment which is being handed out by the self-appointed people's tribune to Mr. Andy Bevan.

Mr. Foot: That question does not arise for next week in the form of a debate in this House. Therefore, encouraged as I am by the hon. Gentleman's invitation, he will not be surprised if I do not respond to it.

Mr. Abse: No doubt the Leader of the House has observed that there are hundreds of amendments to the Bill on the Order Paper, most of which impinge on Scotland and few upon Wales. Will he look at tomorrow's Order Paper on which he will find an Instruction, signed by myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), which proposes to give the Committee power to make provision to divide the Bill into two, one relating to Wales and the other to Scotland? Will he please note that there is a demand in Wales that the Bill has complete consideration in its own context so that, when a referendum comes, Welsh Members will have had the opportunity of clearly expressing their opinions? Will my right


hon. Friend undertake to look at this Instruction to see that Wales has what it has a right to have—a Bill of its own to decide its own fate?

Mr. Foot: I had noticed that there were a few amendments on the Order Paper. I take account of every motion put upon the Order Paper by my hon. Friend and by others. However, I do not believe that is the right way to proceed. Some of these matters will be debated in Committee. Division of the Bill would not assist its passage. Indeed, I am doubtful whether that is the reason why that matter has been proposed.

Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services has refused to answer Written Questions asking him to give the names of the manufacturers of the whooping cough vaccine which is causing the serious problem of brain damage to a few children? The right hon. Gentleman has refused to indicate whether he has had discussions with the manufacturers about the problem and to state whether the vaccine which has been withdrawn in West Germany is the same as is being administered in this country. In view of the terrifying situation facing some parents and their disgust at the Government's refusal to take a clear stand on the issue, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House next week and make a statement on where the Government stand regarding the acceptance of responsibility and compensation?

Mr. Foot: I cannot accept anything said by the hon. Gentleman in criticism of my right hon. Friend on this matter. Of course I will look into the question that he has raised and consider whether it is appropriate to have a statement next week.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Home Secretary as soon as possible to see whether he will come to the House early next week, or perhaps even today, to make a statement on the scandalous treatment of the cases of Agee and Hosenball? Will he ask his right hon. Friend whether, if members of the public, trade unions and the Press are being excluded, he will arrange for Members of Parliament to be

present to see that the hearing is being conducted fairly and properly?

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is acting under procedures which were agreed by the House some years ago, has made it clear that he will not take a final decision in these cases until he has considered the reports from the panel of advisers and the other representations that he has received. I have nothing to add to that statement today.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is scandalous.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when at last we have the promised foreign affairs debate, not have it on a day when our Members of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe are away and unable to be present for the debate as it will be only the second foreign affairs debate in 12 months?

Mr. Foot: I shall do my best to try to avoid a clash. I know that a clash has occurred on previous occasions, and I shall try to avoid it in future, but there are difficulties. When another Assembly is established of which Members of this House have membership, it means that on some occasions there must be a choice between the two places. However, we shall do our best to avoid any such clash.

Mr. Faulds: When may the House have a detailed report on the negotiations at present under way about Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Foot: It depends, to some extent, on the conclusions which may be reached. Obviously if there are fresh major developments next week, the Foreign Secretary will make a statement to the House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If, in the last two years, the Government have managed to read the Bullock Report, when may we have a debate on it?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure to which Bullock Report the hon. Gentleman is referring. [HoN. MEMBERS: "On reading."] If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report on industrial democracy, I am happy to assure him that we hope that it will be published soon and the Government will make a statement on it as soon as possible.

Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) about import duties was very disappointing as these represent an annual increase in food prices contingent on our accession to the EEC? Is he aware that, since joining the EEC, we have had a debate on the Floor of the House every year on these issues? Does not his refusal to allow a debate show that he prefers the time of the House to be spent on giving way what powers it has rather than exercising those powers that remain to it?

Mr. Foot: No, it is not a comparison of that nature. The Government are pressed for the time available in the House to debate all the matters that we want to debate. I fully accept that this is a matter of considerable importance. I have made a suggestion to my hon. Friends on how we could debate the subject. I understand their representations. We shall look afresh to see whether there is any further possibility.

Mr. Pym: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) regarding the Bullock Report which has not yet been published, the right hon. Gentlemen indicated only that the Government would make a statement. Obviously they will make a statement. I hope that he does not think that a debate on that subject of less than one day will be adequate. We believe that subject to be of such importance that more than one day should be taken at an early stage to debate it.

Mr. Foot: I have not said anything about a debate on the subject. I was suggesting that the Government would wish to make a statement at or very near the time of publication of the report. We regard that report as being of major importance. Obviously the House will wish to discuss it at some stage. I am not making any suggestion at this moment as to what immediate time should be allocated for that debate.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the future of the Banaban people and the status of Ocean Island could sour relations between this country and another friendly Commonwealth country—namely, Fiji? Will he therefore pursue the suggestion made by the hon.

Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and ask the Foreign Secretary to make an early statement on the issue?

Mr. Foot: I take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I shall raise the matter with the Foreign Secretary to see whether a statement should be made next week.

Mr. Blaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House about the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition regarding the foreign affairs debate. Were we not promised a foreign affairs debate in Government time during the last Session, a promise which has not been kept?

Mr. Foot: I shall certainly look at the exact terms in which the statement was made, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter. I was saying—I do not think that this can be disputed—that, although there may not have been a general debate on foreign affairs, there was a whole series of debates on different aspects of foreign affairs during that period. I shall look at exactly what undertaking I gave. I take account of what the Leader of the Opposition said about a general debate on foreign affairs. I have said that I shall try to provide time for one at a fairly early date. I am unable to give the date now.

Mr. McNamar: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems of the fishing industry and the threat to employment? Is he also aware that major redundancies—nearly 2,000—are threatened on North Humberside, in the Haltemprice constituency and in my own constituency? When shall we have an opportunity to reconsider the Government's criteria for regional policy, in order to get some help for North Humberside, which has been sadly neglected by the Labour Government?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept the last sentence of my hon. Friend's question although I fully accept that he is an expert on the subject. We have had some debates on fishery matters recently, and I cannot promise another one soon. There is to be a debate on some aspects of regional policy in one of the motions which is to be discussed in Private Member's time, and possibly some of the subjects my hon. Friend has mentioned could be raised then.

Mr. McCrindle: Reverting to earlier points concerning the refusal of a Civil Service trade union to produce unemployment statistics for political reasons, with the failure of a great national newspaper to appear for political reasons, and with interference with the delivery of the Royal Mail by industrial action, is not the time approaching for this House to debate the use of industrial power for political purposes?

Mr. Foot: Those are three separate subjects and it would be foolish to place them all in the same category. If solutions are being sought, this is not the best way to go about it. These are matters which the Opposition may wish to raise on one of their Supply Days.

Mr. Craigen: When shall we have an opportunity to debate the employment and training difficulties facing young people in this country?

Mr. Foot: These matters are raised at various times in economic debates. I accept the importance of this aspect of the matter, but it figured in the economic policy debates just before Christmas, and no doubt it will figure in other debates in the coming weeks and months.

Mr. Gow: When shall we have a statement about the meeting yesterday between the Minister of State at the Foreign Office and a senior officer of Barclays Bank reparding investment in South Africa? May we have a statement about the duality of standards in regard to investment in some countries of whose internal policies we disapprove?

Mr. Foot: These matters were raised at Question Time today and I cannot say that a further statement will be made next week. This is something which could be raised in debate.

Mr. Madel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1975–76 there was a serious legislative log jam because the Government introduced so much business? May we have an assurance that no controversial Bills will be introduced after 1st March?

Mr. Foot: There was never any undertaking given by this Government or any previous Government that they would never introduce controversial matters after 31st March. There was some indica

tion given about when measures should be sent to another place, but I do not believe that any Government could give the sort of undertaking which the hon. Member requires. There is no precedent for such an undertaking in recent times and it seems to me that for a Government to state that all requirements for controversial legislation come to an end at a certain point in the year would be very foolish.

"THE TIMES" (DISPUTE)

Mr. Tebbit: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the failure of the Government to intervene in The Times industrial dispute, which threatens the freedom of the Press.
The facts are known. Last night, one print union at The Times refused to print the newspaper as it had been prepared by the editorial staff because members of that union did not approve of the content of the newspaper. As a result, The Times was censored on such grounds for the first time in its long and distinguished career.
It is clear from the Prime Minister's statement during Question Time that the Government have no intention of acting to protect the freedom of the Press. Further, the question of a Standing Order No. 9 debate may not be raised on Fridays and it is very probable that The Times will not appear again tomorrow.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, therefore, to rule today that a matter so specific, so urgent and of such great importance as this should have precedence over any other business at present set down for consideration by this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the strike at The Times newspaper. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my


decision. I have listened very carefully to the exchanges this afternoon and the exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition and the Lord President. I have also given careful consideration to the representations by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Mr. Ridley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the threat to freedom of the Press implicit in the Prime Minister's qualification of that freedom today in the words 'provided it is accurate'.
The qualification is that the Press should only be free in so far as it prints what the Prime Minister considers to be accurate. This seems to be the first setting out of other qualifications and one which would effectively destroy the freedom of the Press.
I do not raise this matter in any spirit of levity, but it is fundamentally at the heart of human rights of the people of this country that they should have a free Press. Is it right that that free Press can be interrupted by strikers at The Times or by the Prime Minister's view of what is accurate?
If there is to be any meaning in this procedure of Standing Order No. 9 debate, there can be no more important subject for the House to turn to than consideration of the freedom of its Press. I submit that the matter should have priority over the business of the House tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to the freedom of the Press implicit in the Prime Minister's qualification of that freedom today by the words 'provided it is accurate'.

As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

STANDING ORDER No. 9 (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The habit seems to have grown up, and we have seen another example of it now, that when an hon. Member does not like an answer that a Minister gives at Question Time, or some phrase that the Minister uses, he raises the matter under Standing Order No. 9 and is able to ask a supplementary question or to develop the matter in the form of argument or debate. If this precedent is followed, we may have large numbers of applications under Standing Order No. 9 put forward every day by every hon. Member who has some objection to answers that he was given at Question Time.
This is obviously an abuse of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure that could develop into dangerous dimensions and hold up the business of the House. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that something should be done about this and that the matter should be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. If not, it will become quite ridiculous and could seriously damage our proceedings.

Sir David Renton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In effect the right hon. Gentleman is saying that an hon. Member who may have a good case under Standing Order No. 9 shall be prevented from putting that case if it happens to be based upon a ministerial answer. The history of this House has shown that many urgent matters have had to be considered by this House arising out of answers Ministers have given. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to you that what has been put to you by the right hon. Gentleman is much too sweeping in character.

Mr. Speaker: Both the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire


(Sir D. Renton) and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) have been in this House for more than three decades and they know the feel of the House. During my period in the House I have on many occasions found that a Minister's reply has given rise to an application under Standing Order No. 9 and has led to a debate. I think that this is a question that the Select Committee on Procedure should look at. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall ask the Committee to look at the question because I have a vested interest.
From time to time, as the House should know, when requests for Private Notice Questions have been submitted to me and I have not allowed them I have had to sit here and listen to the hon. Member raising the matter under Standing Order No. 9. I consider that disrespectful to the Chair, and I think that the House should know that I do. If Mr. Speaker is asked to rule on a Private Notice Question, for that day at least it ought to take another form. However, the Select Committee may think otherwise and I shall ask it to look at the whole question.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How are you going to do that? As I understand it, the Select Committee on Procedure will not be free to examine the matter upon which you will consult it because, by the motion which the House unwisely passed, it can consider only those matters which have been referred to it by the House. I do not say this in any way to criticise what you have said, but simply to illustrate how unwise we were, at the instigation of the Government, to pass that motion containing that restriction.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is one of the subjects that have been referred for consideration by the Committee and therefore I hope that we shall have a report on the subject fairly soon. I hope that that will comfort my hon. Friend who criticised the motion that was passed. That motion will assist the Select Committee in looking at some of the subjects that have been mentioned today.

Mr. Pym: I think that the House was grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for expressing your view on a certain aspect of the matter, which no doubt may be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure to which the Standing Order No. 9 procedure has been referred. Surely, however, you will agree that it would be absolutely wrong in any way to restrict an hon. Member's right in any way he thinks appropriate to raise a matter which seems to him to be of extreme importance.
If he has applied to you quite legitimately for a Private Notice Question, and if, quite correctly, you have turned him down, it would seem from what you said earlier, Mr. Speaker—perhaps you did not mean to go so far as this—that in some way or other any further discussion or mention of the subject during that day should be considered as being excluded. I do not think that the House could possibly accept such a proposition.
If there is a matter that seems important to one or more hon. Members, and if the first obvious method of raising it is denied, for perfectly legitimate and sound reasons, surely hon. Members are entirely entitled to raise it in another way if they can find such a device. If not, we may get into real difficulties.
I may have been interpreting what you said more strictly than you intended, Mr. Speaker, but it is important that all the ways which are open to an hon. Member to seek to raise a matter should remain open to him, whatever adjustment may be thought proper in relation to any particular method.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is the system of raising Private Notice Questions that ought to be looked at. My duty is to protect the rights of hon. Members to pursue their interests as far as possible—minority interests especially, because the large numbers can look after themselves. But I accept fully what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your ruling, do I understand that you have no criticism whatever of my two hon. Friends who endeavoured to raise important


points under Standing Order No. 9? Your answer to the Father of the House would imply that you had some criticism.

Mr. Speaker: I have not. I was in no way criticising the hon. Gentlemen and it should not have been so inferred. However, the Father of the House expressed his criticism, but I have said on an earlier occasion that debates have often been granted under Standing Order No. 9 arising out of replies from Ministers.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Order for Committee read.

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that the Instruction on the Order Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) is out of order and therefore I cannot allow it to be moved.

Miss Harvie Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not seek to challenge your ruling in any way. May I seek your guidance? Without this Instruction, it seems that it will be difficult for a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House to raise points regarding their constituencies and the special interests in those constituencies, as they would undoubtedly wish to do.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that all I can say is that the Instruction itself is out of order. It is beyond the ambit of the Bill, which deals with Scotland and Wales. I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members will find ways and means of pursuing those special interests.

Mr. Leo Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your reply you indicated that the Instruction was beyond the scope of the Bill and I understood you to say that this was why you had ruled in the manner that you had. But surely this is a matter which comes within the rules of order laid down for such an Instruction, and that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may raise the point of order, but he cannot challenge my ruling that the Instruction is out of order. Perhaps he will pursue his argument a little differently.

Mr. Abse: Since you have given no reasons, Mr. Speaker, and since I misunderstood what you said a little earlier when you appeared to give a reason, may I ask whether you would be prepared to give reasons?
May I put it to you in this way? It is clear that the issue which has been raised is one of fundamental importance,


particularly to Members representing English constituencies. It is equally clear that there will be other directions, as I am aware from one that I have put down myself. It is an unusual procedure, which is rarely used, and the precedents for such directions at this stage in a Committee of the whole House are very sparse. Surely, therefore, it would be reasonable if the House could be informed of the framework within which you are operating rather than having a procedure by which it is within your power to give a direction in the way you have.
Given, therefore, that we are aware that there are four or five heads which are normally regarded as reasons why such a direction can be excluded or ruled out of order, it would be exceedingly helpful, particularly since this is a matter impinging upon the rights of Members representing English constituencies, if the matter could be further illuminated.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentlemen. I have a considered statement because I thought there might be some questions with regard to my ruling.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East has given notice of an Instruction which, if agreed to, would empower the Committee to provide for alterations to the structure and functions of government in any or all parts of the United Kingdom.
Although the purpose of an Instruction is to allow the Committee to extend the provisions of a Bill to objects not strictly covered by its subject matter as disclosed on Second Reading, it is nevertheless always necessary that any such new objects must be cognate to the Bill's general purposes. This principle is clearly stated in "Erskine May", p. 509. Examples are also given, in the pages following, of Instructions which have been ruled out of order because they would embody principles
foreign to the Bill
or would attempt to introduce into it subjects
which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure".
Despite the great size and complexity of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the very

brevity of its Long Title makes clear that it has one underlying purpose, and one only, namely,
to Provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales".
Changes in the government of other parts of the United Kingdom in my view cannot possibly be held to be cognate to this restricted purpose. I must accordingly rule that the proposed Instruction would not be in order.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I respectfully make a submission to you, Mr. Speaker? It arises out of the Long Title of the Bill which forms the basis of the ruling that you have just given to the House. The Long Title describes the Bill as one
to Provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales".
You will be aware that there have been placed before the House Bills to provide for the better government of Ireland and that those Bills have included within their contents alterations in the representation in this House of the various parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would have been impossible for those Bills as constituted to pass into law unless the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom had been modified.
I respectfully wish to submit that, on that precedent, on a Bill to provide for changes in the government of a part of the United Kingdom it may be fitly regarded as cognate to its principles to propose provisions for the alteration of the representation of the Kingdom in this House.

Dr. Colin Phipps: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful if you could help us with an elucidation of your ruling. Clause I says that this matter will not
affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
Those of us who represent constituencies outside Scotland and Wales feel that it might require certain adjustments in the government of the United Kingdom, in particular in England and Northern Ireland, for the stipulation in Clause I to take effect.
It is all very well for the Government boldly to say that this will not
affect the unity of the United Kingdom
but if we are not to discuss that, it is hard to see how we can avoid it.

Mr. J. Grimond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support what has been said by the last two speakers. In particular, I should like you to consider the implications of the word "cognate" that you yourself used. It is surely "cognate" to this matter that if this Bill were to become law, Scotland, for instance, would have an Assembly—I would prefer a Parliament—of its own. It would also retain its present membership in this House. At the same time Northern Ireland, which at present has no assembly or Parliament of its own, would have no increase in the number of Members sent to this House.
These are very cognate matters because this Bill would change the constitution of the United Kingdom whether we like it or not. It would radically change the balance of political power of the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the Instruction fell within the precedents for such Instructions to a Committee of this House.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said, this is an infrequently used procedure. It throws up an important question in relation to the word "cognate" which is that the Bill does not, of course, just provide for
changes in the government of Scotland and Wales".
But there are references in the Bill to certain aspects of functions of government in other parts of the United Kingdom, specifically in England. The consequence of your ruling and, indeed, a reading of "Erskine May" is that the matter is cognate only when the Government or promoters of a Bill have already put the matter in the Bill. Those hon. Members who will later seek to extend what is cognate to the Bill to other parts of the United Kingdom will, I am sure unintentionally, be discriminated against because they are not the authors of the Bill.
Surely the purpose of our discussing Bills in the fashion that we do is to see that all interests from all parts of the United Kingdom are best represented. That being the case, it is only fair and responsible and relevant to the whole future of the United Kingdom, because of the matters contained in the Bill, for

the Bill to embrace a much wider sphere than you accept that it does at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it is possible for you to give further consideration to this point simply because matters are already contained in the Bill that go well beyond providing for
changes in the government of Scotland and Wales".

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the basis of your ruling depends upon the brevity, or lack of it, of the Bill's Long Title. It occurs to me that it is open to the House in Committee to amend the Long Title of a Bill. As I understand the precedents, whether they are well or ill founded, an amendment to the Long Title can be taken only at the end of the Committee stage.
It may not have escaped your attention that there is a manuscript amendment in my name to the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House to the effect that amendments to the Long Title might be considered at the earliest point in the Committe stage. That would enable amendments to be taken today and, if carried, to enlarge the debate in order to take in amendments affecting Ulster and England and, indeed, other parts of Great Britain if such they be.
Of course, I appreciate that the selection of amendments in the Committee stage is not your responsibility, but perhaps a tactful word from the Chair might encourage the selection of the manuscript amendment and might provide a solution to the problem that is obviously agitating the House at the moment.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that Clause 44 already covers the point about the whole of the United Kingdom. I would therefore have thought that the Instruction was only proper as falling into line precisely with that clause as drafted. It can cover areas far wider than Scotland and Wales.
As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland


(Mr. Grimond), questions of representation and so forth will have to be discussed by the House. Further, if you look at page 512 of "Erskine May"—I hope my memory serves me right—you will find, Mr. Speaker that the matter of a referendum will have to be by way of a special procedure and that special procedure will follow the lines proposed by my right hon. Friend. We would therefore be in considerable confusion if a referendum were to be tagged on to the end of the Bill. That would be ultra vires unless such an Instruction as my right hon. Friend proposes is accepted by you. I know that it is a very difficult case, but I think that we need to look at it again before proceeding any further.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before putting my question to you, Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that I am not seeking in any way to filibuster; indeed, for so much of this Bill filibustering is quite unnecessary.
Will you be good enough to expand on your phrase "objects not essentially covered by the subject matter"? What guidelines are you issuing to your colleagues who will be occupying the Chair?
To be frank, during the Second Reading debate we saw that a very much tougher view was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) than was taken by the right hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) who, according to taste, was more tolerant in my view, although others might say that he was more lax. But it seems that there is a very important question about the guidelines which you and your colleagues hope to follow. After all, objects can be differently interpreted.
I mean no disrespect to them when I say that the object of right hon. and hon. Members on the third Opposition Bench is quite unashamedly the objective of a separate Scottish State. That is not the object of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and it may be that some of us have even different objectives. It is very important to define terms at this early stage.

Mr. Timothy Raison: There appears to be one specific, although not tremendously important, respect in

which the Bill affects the government of England, and that is in the provisions for water. The provisions for water set out in Schedules 13 and 16 require the Welsh Assembly to have various representatives on the Severn-Trent Water Authority. They also lay a duty on the Cheshire County Council, the Hereford and Worcester County Council and one or two other local authorities to have representatives on the Welsh Water Authority. These provisions quite clearly intervene in the government of England, yet they are not covered by the Long Title of the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We all know that Mr. Speaker's rulings must not be questioned. But it is strange that we should be having this discussion now, when we are not arguing or disagreeing with Mr. Speaker but when we have what might be termed a difference of opinion amongst ourselves.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members with very long years of service here are putting forward a genuine argument which they believe might not have been within the knowledge of the Chair's advisers when their advice was sought. The Chair might perhaps have been misled because at that time the information was not available or was not known to its advisers. I shall not say that Mr. Speaker may have been wrongly advised, but perhaps he was not as fully advised as he might have been.
There are many occasions when Mr. Speaker finds, having given a ruling, that if he had known this or that he would probably have come to a different decision. A number of right hon. and hon. Members here have put forward their arguments. There are other right hon. and hon. Members who for various reasons cannot be here but who might have been able to give Mr. Speaker some information and some ideas for his consideration.
Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, not to give a further ruling on these matters at the moment but to hold it in abeyance and, in the meantime, give it deeper consideration and ask right hon. and hon. Members to discuss it with you. That might give you an opportunity to come to a different decision on the basis of further information given to you. That would mean, of course, that


your first decision was right on the basis of the knowledge then in your hands, but that in view of new information which has come into your possession you can perhaps give a different ruling.

Sir David Renton: With respect to all right hon. and hon. Members, I must say that we are already getting into a state of confusion because of the two different meanings of the word "government". I bring myself in order in raising this matter because clearly, Mr. Speaker, your ruling was based on the Long Title of the Bill, which reads
To Provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales.
If we refer to today's Order Paper, in the first item we see the word "government" used in quite different ways. Above that first item we see the words
Those marked thus"—
and then follows an asterisk,
are Government Orders of the Day".
That is a reference to the word "government" in its narrow but, I suggest, only strictly true meaning. Then, in the Instruction itself, as in the Long Title of the Bill, we see the word "government" used in its broader but, I submit, vaguer meaning.
Strictly speaking, the constitution of any civilised country consists of four distinct elements: first, the electorate; secondly, the legislature, which is democratically elected by the electorate, in our constitution in respect of one House at any rate; thirdly, the Executive, which is the Government in its narrower meaning; and, fourthly, the judiciary. I submit that at this early stage of our proceedings we should be doing a great service to each other if we were to bear in mind that the word "government" is better used in its strict meaning and not in its broader meaning, because that can lead only to confusion.
Looking back, I think that our predecessors chose the wrong Short Title for the Government of Ireland Act 1920. But we ought to be able to do better than that to clarify our minds, and I bring myself in order by saying what I say because I have already tabled an amendment to the Long Title which would replace the expression.
changes in the government of Scotland and Wales
by the expression
constitutional changes affecting".

I appreciate the difficulty that, in accordance with precedent, we do not normally seek to amend the Long Title until we have completed the Committee stage. But I hope that when we reach that point we may give proper meaning to what we intend and that meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, you will be so good as to help and guide the House in the proposition that eventually we wish to give the narrow meaning only to the word "government" and use "constitutional changes affecting" when we really mean that.

Mr. Abse: When I raised my original point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was inviting you to give an explanation, and you were kind enough to give the explanation. I rise again because your explanation has bewildered me. It has bewildered me because I did not know upon what view you were depending. Now that you have explained that you think that the direction can be excluded because it is not cognate to the Bill, I am extraordinarily confused.
Perhaps it is my confusion that I am expressing rather than any cogent view, but I put it to you that if you examine the Long Title itself, which reads
To Provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales",
the immediate question that arises is how that can possibly be done without providing for changes in the government of England. It is not possible.
Since the Bill is fundamentally and vitally affecting major Acts governing this country by tearing them away from the control of this legislature, it follows to a simple man like myself that clearly there can be no doubt that matters which right hon. and hon. Members may wish to raise relating to fundamental alterations in major Acts affecting their constituents must be cognate to the purposes of the Bill. The complexities concerning the arrangements relating to water have already been mentioned. That shows how some of the intentions of the Bill are closely interlocked, how they stretch across Offa's Dyke and find themselves enmeshed with English matters.
The Bill does not affect only peripheral matters such as those. The Bill radically alters Act after Act. Opening the Bill at random, I find that the Transport Act 1962 is mentioned under Schedule 16. As a consequence of this Bill, some members


appointed to the board set up under the Transport Act will be nominated by the Welsh Assembly. How can it therefore be suggested that this Bill does not introduce matters that will affect legislation and will affect every right hon. and hon. Member of the House?
Now that you, Mr. Speaker, have revealed the reason for your ruling, I do not challenge it, but I am bound to question it. A stain penetrates the whole of the Bill and it is part of a pattern whereby matters affecting the whole of the United Kingdom will be altered by the Bill. How can it be suggested that the Instruction is irrelevant and not cognate to the Bill?
The importance of this initial ruling—if it is firmly adhered to—will be that throughout the debates on the Bill right hon. and hon. Members wishing to speak on behalf of English constituencies may find themselves in great trouble. They could be raising matters that they believe will impinge on their constituencies. But they could be told that even though the Bill will affect the government of their constituents, they will be out of order because of the ruling on the Long Title of the Bill. That cannot be tenable, and I hope, with great respect to the Chair, that the House will not easily pass on from this issue.

Mr. Francis Pym: Further to that point of order. The House is in a slight difficulty here. Is it not fair to say that the essence of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, was that this instruction is out of order because it is outwith the Long Title? Representations made by both sides of the House indicate that the Long Title itself is thought to be inaccurate in some respects and that elements of the government of England are mentioned. This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) indicated that he would seek to raise the point at a later stage. Representations made by the last four speakers suggest that if the Long Title could be adjusted in some way you, Mr. Speaker, might take a different view about the Instruction. We are in difficulties because of the order in which we are taking things.
There is an alternative, although I have not yet had a chance of discussing it with my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). If, in the second line of the Instruction, after the word "for", the word "consequential" were added, perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, would take a different view of your ruling.
Many speeches during the Second Reading debate on the Bill were about the government of the United Kingdom as a whole as well as about Scotland and Wales in particular. We are in a difficulty over what appears to some right hon. and hon. Members to be an inadequacy, or even an inaccuracy, in the Long Title which has led the Chair to give such a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may intervene at this point. I have listened with great care to the representations that have been made following my ruling. The House will understand that I have to rule according to the Bill as it is. I have to interpret the Standing Orders of the House and "Erskine May" according to the measure that I have before me. The Instruction that the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) proposes—which I have read again with great care—goes far beyond the purposes of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot change the ruling that I have given that the Instruction proposed by the right hon. Lady is indeed out of order.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to you without challenging your ruling? There have been precedents where the Chair has given a ruling on one day, but following representations the ruling has been changed on the next day. There was a recent example of this in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The Chair—quite rightly on the basis of the Bill as it was understood—gave a ruling on one occasion, but, because of representations made by an Opposition Member and after further consideration, then gave a different ruling on a subsequent occasion. We got ourselves into a spot of difficulty, and we are still in it as far as I know, as a result of that ruling.
Because of the representations that have been made there is a powerful case for


examining the Long Title of the Bill, which is
To provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales",
but Schedule 16(55) talks about removing the words" Great Britain" and substituting the words "England, Scotland and Wales", in reference to the splitting up of the Forestry Commission. In that way the Bill affects—if one uses the word "government" in the way that I understand it—the government of England.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who is a constitutionalist of some renown—although I do not always agree with him—is nodding, and is therefore in agreement with me and accepts my interpretation. There are many parts of the Bill that will have the same effect in relation to various matters, such as water and the Forestry Commission.
There is, therefore, a good case for you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your ruling just as you reconsidered a previous one as a result of representations made in the House. If the Bill could be taken away today—we could suspend today's debate—we could receive a ruling from you tomorrow and start again from there.

Mr. Powell: Less daring than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order which is distinct though, if I may use the word, cognate. If I understand rightly, your ruling upon the notice on the Order Paper was founded upon two points—the Long Title of the Bill and the wording—which, as you have indicated, is wide—of the motion on the Order Paper.
You will vacate the Chair when the House goes into Committee and I think that it likely that the judgment of the Chairman in Committee, though it would be his, might be influenced by any ruling which you have given upon the motion on the Order Paper.
I do not wish to invite you to indicate what would or would not be in order in Committee—that is for someone else—but I would ask you to indicate that the ruling which you are giving on the motion on the Order Paper in no way prejudices the question whether amendments relating to the government of the United Kingdom would or would not be in order in Committee.
I do not wish to protract my submission, but perhaps I may refer to a very clear precedent. I have in front of me Chapter 67 of the Public General Acts passed in the tenth and eleventh years of the reign of George V. The chapter is entitled:
An Act to provide for the better Government of Ireland.
The provisions of that Act altered the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and thereby indubitably made changes in the government of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The Bill which is before us, although its Title follows closely the perhaps unfortunate precedent of the Bills of 1912 to 1914 and 1920, contains at present no such provision for altering the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
I submit that just because at this stage contains no such provision, it would be an unreasonable restriction on hon. Members if, in Committee, we were unable to consider amendments that would assimilate the Bill for changing the government of Scotland and Wales to the Act for the better government of Ireland.
Would you, Mr. Speaker, please indicate that, whatever may be your final conclusion upon the admissibility of the motion on the Order Paper, that ruling will not restrict or bind the Chair in Committee as to the admissibility of amendments directed to altering the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or other aspects of the government of the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point on which the House is entitled to a reply. The ruling that I have given is obviously without prejudice to any amendments moved in Committee. My ruling applies solely to the Instruction, which I consider to be much too wide and not in harmony with what the Bill proposes to do.
I must now tell the House that I do not propose to allow a debate to take place on my ruling. I have been very tolerant in listening to hon. Members from both sides of the House, but my ruling must stand. The Instruction is out of order.

Bill considered in Committee.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Before we proceed with the Bill, could you give hon. Members some guidance? You will recall that during the Second Reading of the Bill, speeches were made from the Government Front Bench inviting hon. Members to table amendments dealing with revenue-raising powers for the Assemblies.
Although we were invited to put down amendments on this subject, when we attempted to do so the valid point was made that if the amendments allowed for any variation, they would be excluded under the rules of order of the House because variations could be upwards as well as downwards.
We therefore have some difficulty in following the request that we should table amendments on this important subject. Would it be possible for the Government to move a Ways and Means Resolution in broad terms to allow Back Benchers and Opposition Front Benchers to move amendments so that we may discuss the revenue-raising powers of the Assemblies?

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order, but I suggest that it is for the Government to decide whether they desire to move a Ways and Means Resolution.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Could you give your guidance on a related matter of considerable importance which reflects upon the fundamental duty of the House to ensure that no taxation is levied without representation?
The provisions of Part IV of the Bill indicate that there should be created Scottish and Welsh Consolidated Funds to which taxpayers in other parts of the United Kingdom would be expected to contribute as a result of decisions taken in this House not solely by hon. Members representing the non-Welsh and Scottish parts of the parliamentary process. If, as I suspect, this is a departure from the fundamental precept that there should be no taxation without representation, how can it be consistent with the existing constitution of the United Kingdom that

decisions should be influenced by those who will spend the money rather than those on whom it will be levied?

The Chairman: Part IV of the Bill is a long way ahead and the Chair cannot rule upon it now.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) referred to the suggestion of the Government Front Bench and the demand of Back Benchers that amendments should be tabled relating to revenue-raising powers under the Bill. We have been told that this is not possible without a Ways and Means Resolution from the Government. You have ruled that this is the position and that it is in the Government's province——

The Chairman: Order. I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not so rule.

Mr. Buchan: Well, at least we shall be in difficulties unless the Government table such a resolution.

The Chairman: That is a correct construction of my remarks. That puts the matter right as far as the Chair is concerned.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure whether you are rebuking me for my last remarks, Mr. Murton. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, through you, to consider bringing forward a Ways and Means Resolution so that a discussion on these amendments can proceed?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Part IV is still a considerable way ahead. We shall certainly take into account the points that have been raised because when we come to that part of the Bill we want to ensure the freest possible discussion. We know that there are serious questions to be raised on that aspect. We have not designed the Bill in any way to restrict discussion.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I ask the Lord President, through you, Mr. Murton, whether he will consider bringing forward a Ways and Means Resolution at an early date so as to


enable hon. Members to table amendments without leaving them to the very last moment?

Mr. Foot: I shall consider the matter in the way in which it has been raised by my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman. I fully appreciate its importance from the point of view of the Committee as a whole. We shall try to deal with the matter as soon as possible so that hon. Members have plenty of time to put down amendments.

Mr. Charles Morrison: You will be aware, Mr. Murton, that amendments have been put down to the Long Title. The Committee knows that such amendments will not be debated until the end of the Committee stage. Will you be prepared to allow debate on amendments concerned with the effects upon England of changes proposed in the government of Scotland and Wales?

The Chairman: The Chair cannot deal with that matter now because it is a hypothetical question. The Chair will look at the matter as the debate develops.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It may he hypothetical in one respect, but it is a foregone conclusion that within the orbit of this Bill there will be a great number of changes agreed to which will have effects upon England. As a result, it is very important to establish precisely what the position is now, at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill, before we start debating amendments concerned with the effects on England.

The Chairman: The Chair will bear in mind at the appropriate time any matter that is relevant to the Bill.

Mr, Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The Long Title as it stands is defective as a matter of fact. If the Long Title can be shown to be defective now, as I believe it can, it must be right to entertain an amendment to it so that our debates can be in order.
I give one specific reason why I consider that the Long Title is defective. I have a particular interest in the Police Federation, which is a statutory body and is part of the government of England and Wales. Scotland has its own separate Police

Federation. Under the terms of the Bill, the position of the Police Federation of England and Wales will be changed, because the Welsh Assembly will have the capacity to alter the local government of Wales. But the police service in Wales, as in England, is based on the local authority divisions. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Wales, who is trying to intervene, has said specifically in a public place that he will ask the Welsh Assembly to alter the local authorities, as one of its first orders of business.
My point is that there are powers in the Bill for the Welsh Assembly to alter the local government structure upon which the statutory Police Federation of England and Wales is based. That must mean that the Long Title as it stands is defective and inadequate to cover the position of the Police Federation of England and Wales today. Therefore, it would be much wiser if the Long Title were to be amended now, or if debate on it were to proceed, so that the rest of our consideration of the Bill would be more nearly in conformity with the facts.
Would you, Mr. Murton, be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to the Long Title at this stage? Although the precedent is that we do not normally amend the Long Title until the end of the Bill, for perfectly obvious and sensible reasons, there is nothing which says that the Long Title cannot be amended at a different stage. It is open to the Committee to seek to amend the Long Title at any time that it judges appropriate. I ask you to allow an amendment to the Long Title to bring the Bill into conformity with the facts at this early stage.

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It will not have escaped your attention that there is a manuscript amendment in my name to the motion standing in the name of the Lord President. That amendment would permit the Committee to debate the Long Title and amendments to it in advance of the other amendments, which would meet precisely the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). If you could indicate whether you will select the manuscript amendment, Mr. Murton, that


might save many points of order and prevent the time of the Committee from being wasted.

The Chairman: I regret that I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). Hon. Members will see from page 531 of "Erskine May" that
the title can only be amended if the Bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment".
"Erskine May" also states that debate on an amendment to the Title must be limited to the question whether the alteration is necessary to bring the title into conformity with the Bill. Neither of these conditions could be fulfilled if the Committee were to consider the Title first. The hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment is accordingly not in order.

Dr. Phipps: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. The Committee is put in some difficulty. Following the rejection by Mr. Speaker of the Instruction put forward by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), and now this rejection of a change in the Long Title, difficulties will arise. For example, Clause 18(2) states:
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
I submit that this provision goes as wide as anything suggested by the right hon. Lady or any other Opposition Member, if it enables a Scottish Assembly to amend Acts of Parliament which this Parliament has devised for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom, without further recourse to this Parliament. I would like your guidance, Mr. Murton, whether the Committee is prohibited from discussing the effect of Clause 18(2) on the rest of the United Kingdom. I submit that a change of the kind requested in the Instruction or a change in the Long Title would allow us to discuss those matters, the breadth of which is already embodied in the clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) has raised an extremely serious point. The Long Title is fallacious. I submit that the situation described in "Erskine May", whereby the Title may be amended only where the Bill itself

requires such an amendment consequential upon the alteration of the Bill, obtains now. We have discovered that the Long Title is so deceptive that it no longer adequately describes the content of the Bill. I have no doubt that it effectively describes the alleged purposes of the Bill as seen by the Government, but it does not so describe the proposals.
Reference has been made to Clause 18(2) whereby the Scottish Assembly can alter Acts passed by this House of Commons. If one moves on to Clause 44 one finds that any provision made by the Scottish Assembly can be brought into law in this country by Order in Council approved by resolution of this House. One could therefore have the odd situation that anyone seeking to amend an Act—and we all know how complicated a procedure that is—might be able to do it simply by getting the Scottish Assembly to pass a resolution altering an Act of this House and then for an Order in Council to be laid on the Table and prayed against. That would mean that a half-hour debate could alter a measure passed by the House of Commons. Although that might sound ludicrous, that is the effect of taking these two clauses together. It could have a considerable impact on the method by which the United Kingdom is governed.

The Chairman: This is a matter which can be discussed when these clauses are reached.

Mr. Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton, I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) that there is much in the Bill and therefore no reason to seek to try and cause an iota of unnecessary delay. But I feel that matters of real substance have been raised in the points of order which have challenged the accuracy and validity of the Long Title. All that the Lord President has done is to sit on the Front Bench and listen, except for one intervention promising to consider the possibility of a Ways and Means Resolution. No one has attempted to justify the Long Title. A manuscript amendment was tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) but it was not found acceptable. Neverthless, the issue raised there, as with the issue previously raised


with Mr. Speaker, was totally germane to the debate.
I hope that the Lord President will consider it right to help the House by seeking to justify the Bill which he is introducing rather than let the present situation continue.

Mr. Foot: The matter before the House is not a subject for debate but a point of order. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has invited me to engage upon a debate upon a point of order. He will be aware that I would be ruled out of order if I attempted to do that. Hon. Members have properly raised points of order and you, Mr. Murton have ruled upon them. We accept your ruling just as we accepted the previous ruling by Mr. Speaker.
Under the rules of the House matters concerning the Title of a Bill are taken at a much later stage and we believe that there are good reasons for that. I do not propose to engage in a debate about the nature of the Bill as a whole on a point of order. I suggest that we proceed to the debates on the Bill and debate these matters at the appropriate stage when each of us can develop our cases properly. We cannot do that on points of order because we would be ruled out of order.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The Lord President has perhaps unwittingly put his finger precisely on the difficulties that we encountered in that we shall be unable to deploy the full case that we need to deploy if the Bill is to be fully explored. I have no wish to, nor can I, challenge your ruling that my amendment is out of order, Mr. Murton. The passage which was read from "Erskine May" was based on the premise that no Bill will be introduced in the House which does not conform to its Long Title. But this Bill clearly goes outside the Long Title.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has an encyclopaedic mind, provided a precedent which demonstrates clearly that there will be consequences in this Bill that will go far outside Scotland and Wales.
If you do not feel minded to accept my manuscript amendment, Mr. Murton, I seek your guidance. I assume that the

earlier words of Mr. Speaker during the last hour were drawn to your attention. He said that this in no way prejudices the admissibility of amendments concerning England and Wales. I seek your guidance to see how far we can go in the amendments which we may legitimately put down on matters affecting England and Wales which will be consequential to matters already contained in the Bill. I ask for your guidance with respect on this important point.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) raised two points. The first concerned the question of the Long Title of the Bill. That is a matter for argument and not a matter for the Chair. The other matter is hypothetical at this stage. We shall see how we develop as the debate continues.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. If this is a matter of argument and not for the Chair, with whom do we argue the point? Three people have offered advice to the House. Mr. Speaker said that his ruling was based on precedent and "Erskine May"—and "Erskine May" still rules. He had to give a ruling that the consideration of the government of England was excluded by the Long Title of the Bill. In your capacity as Chairman of the Committee, you told the Committee that according to your advice and previous custom——

The Chairman: The hon. Member should not embroider Mr. Speaker's ruling. He used it as an illustration.

Mr. Ogden: I accept that. But according to custom, precedent and rules and criteria by which the Chair and the House operate, consideration of the government of England is excluded by the Long Title. I have no doubt that the Long Title was selected because the Government had similar advice.
It is clear that hon. Members want to discuss a certain matter. We do not want the Bill to be decided by filibuster or points of order but by discussion and votes. But, if the Committe is limited by these present rules, I ask your advice about how we can overcome or change the rules so that the Committee can decide by vote at some stage whether we should be able to discuss what we all want to discuss.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. On the first item on the Paper before the Committee a motion stands in the name of the Leader of the House. Already on the Order Paper are five amendments, including one in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who is leading for the official Opposition, which are amendments to the Long Title of the Bill. In the motion which stands in the name of the Lord President—and one can only assume that this is deliberate—there is no mention at all of any stage at which the Committee is to consider amendments to the Long Title. In view of the importance of the ruling——

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I might interrupt the hon. Gentleman I hope with courtesy. The question of any amendments to the Long Title is considered at the end of the Bill.

Mr. Gow: With respect, Mr. Murton, what I am asking you is this: are you advising the Committee, or are you ruling, that it would be out of order for the Committee, even if it so wished, to decide that it wished to discuss the question of the Long Title before any of the other amendments? Are you telling the Committee that it could not, even if it so wished, and in whatever order the Committee decided, debate the question of the Long Title? That is of very great importance because of the ruling given earlier by Mr. Speaker, because Mr. Speaker relied not upon the substance of the Bill—it was not that which led him to give earlier the ruling that he gave—but upon the wording of the Long Title.
If the Government of the day are able to exclude discussion of certain key elements in a Bill by themselves drafting the Long Title in such a way as can then prevent this Committee or the House of Commons from deciding what is subject to debate and what is not, I submit that that could be a very serious violation of the rights of hon. Members.

The Chairman: To discuss the question of the Long Title now would be contrary to the practice of the House. I have so ruled when I dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees).

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I understood you to say that it would be contrary to the practice of the House. Are you ruling that it would be impossible, inadmissible or out of order for this Committee to decide that it wished to discuss first any amendments to the Long Title?

The Chairman: The answer is "Yes".

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I wonder whether you can help me. Are we to understand that the question whether the Committee wants to retain the wording of the Long Title in its present form is one which should come, and can come, under the practice of the House, at the end of the debate on all the clauses—that is what I think you have just said—but that meanwhile the present wording, which we have not yet established is good or bad, whether or not we agree with it, will to some extent—I stress "to some extent" be binding in determining what we can discuss and what amendments can be moved before we get to the discussion of the Title?
That situation, if true, is so manifestly absurd that it is perfectly credible that, this being the House of Commons it is the current practice. However, I wonder whether the House needs to stick to all the most imbecilic of its precedents.
Can you also clarify a further point, Mr. Murton? As I have always understood it, it is not the Long Title or the Title of the Bill which is the last word upon the content of the Bill. I have forgotten the magic word. It is the "ambit" of the Bill, or some such word, which is held to be the metaphysical thing which we are supposed to stay within. Am I right in thinking that if you were to decide that a certain subject came within this metaphysical ambit of the Bill and that the Government had botched it by not putting it inside the Long Title, you would be perfectly free to allow that subject to be discussed because it was within the ambit of the Bill although not within the Long Title?
I seem to recall that around 1971 or 1972 there was some precedent, relating, I think, to Ireland, where there was a


point held to be within the confines of the Bill—that is the word; "confines"—but which was not covered by the Long Title. Can you assure us, Mr. Murton, that as long as you can be satisfied that a matter is within the confines of the ambit of the present content of the Bill. it will be open to us to discuss it? For example—if I may assist—can you assure us that we shall be able to discuss changes in the government of the education in England arising from the fact that in future there will be people in control of that education, having a say in that education—namely, the Members from Scotland—who will have a right or a say on English education although English Members will not have a right or a say on Scottish education?

The Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. "Scope" is the word to which the hon. Gentleman was really referring, and "Title" is not the same thing as the word "scope". However, if a Bill is amended within its scope, the Title can be amended consequentially.
May I add that Part III of the Bill governs relations within the United Kingdom. This may help the Committee. Amendments relevant to this subject can be tabled and will be selected if they are relevant and otherwise in order. If the Title should eventually prove not to cover the Bill as it has been amended, the Title can be amended.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It seems to me that this will still leave the Committee in very considerable difficulties. I know that this is a matter of scope, but hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have great doubts as they come to the various stages of the Bill about what is in order. It seems that operating under his particular Title will put an intolerable pressure on the Chair throughout the working of this Committee. I ask you earnestly to look again at this matter because I am sure that it will ease the progress of the Bill and facilitate the work of the Chair.

The Chairman: Perhaps I could explain, from the Chair, that the Chair is ultimately bound by the scope rather than the Title.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker's ruling was that certain amendments were out of order because they were not consistent with the Long Title of the Bill. You, Mr. Murton, have ruled that the Long Title can be amended only at the conclusion of the proceedings if the Bill has then become inconsistent with the Long Title. I think that the difficulty that the House is in is that it does not understand how it can amend the Bill in a way inconsistent with the Long Title if any such amendment is out of order before it is discussed. If you could assure the Committee that, at certain stages of the Bill, anyway, an amendment will be out of order because it is inconsistent with the Long Title, I should have thought that the difficulty could be resolved.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand that the ruling that I gave is in line entirely with that which I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Perhaps I may refer back to the ruling which you gave a few moments ago—it seemed to me a very helpful ruling—in which you referred to Part III of the Bill as a part of the Bill to which in your view it would, in principle, be admissible that amendments relating to parts of the Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales would be in order. The point that I wish to put to you, Mr. Murton, is that that Part is restricted, as it stands at present, at any rate, to what is described as "United Kingdom Authorities". What I am inquiring is whether the proposition which you admitted in relation to Part III, which relates to Authorities, could also apply to other Parts of the Bill where the rest of the Kingdom is involved and affected by what is being enacted by the Bill as it stands.
At the expense of another few seconds, perhaps I might intimate what I have in mind. Clearly amendments to Part III would relate to the operation of Authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom. What is indicated in Parts I and II might be thought by Members to


involve changes in the legislative powers and other aspects of the government of the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Mr. Murton, I respectfully suggest that it would be helpful to the Committee if you indicated that your reference to Part III was, as it were, by way of example, that we can table non-Scottish or non-Welsh amendments to Part III relating to authorities, and that we can by parity of reasoning table similarly relevant amendments to other parts of the Bill affecting the government of the rest or the whole of the United Kingdom.

5.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Yes, provided the amendments are relevant to the scope of the argument—the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: I seek clarification on a specific issue. Up to now the Government have not put forward their proposals for the referendum in the form of new clauses, or however they will do it. It could well be that the Government will propose that the referendum applies only in Scotland and Wales. It is clear that the Bill affects the people of the whole of the United Kingdom, and it may well be that Members who represent English constituencies feel that there should be amendment to the Government's proposals, whatever they may be. That may imply that Members representing English constituencies believe that the English should have some sort of vote on this issue. Would such amendments be ruled out of order because of a narrow definition in respect of the Long Title—namely, that it applies to Scotland and Wales? This is an extremely important matter. If we do not receive clarification, we might as well wrap up the whole debate and English Members might as well go home.

The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order and his view. He has raised an entirely hypothetical question.

Mr. Heffer: No, it is not.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I seek your advice, Mr. Murton, on a matter that arises from your earlier ruling. As I understand it, you said in your clear remarks that you were relying upon the interpretation in "Erskine May" of the practice of the House. Surely it must be the case that

the House is master in its own house and that it can, if it so wishes, change the practice of the House at any time that it desires to do so.
I should be obliged to receive your guidance, Mr. Murton, on three specific matters. First, is there any Standing Order of the House that governs us in amending the Long Title? As I understand it, Mr. Murton, you have relied wholly upon the practice as described by "Erskine May" and not upon any Standing Order. If I am right, will you advise me as to how the House can change that practice?
Secondly, you will have noticed, Mr. Murton, that in page 506 of "Erskine May" under the heading" Functions of a Committee on a Bill "it is stated:
The objects of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill".
It is the view of many Members on both sides of the Committee that the objects of the Bill as stated in the Long Title are inaccurately described. I quote again—
The … long title … should cover everything contained in the Bill.
If the House were to take the view that the Long Title does not describe everything contained in the Bill, how, Mr. Murton, would you advise the Committee that we should change it?
My third point arises from page 489 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Examination of a Bill". Paragraph (1) "Provisions to be within the order of leave or notice of presentation".
states:
In preparing Bills, care must be taken that they do not contain provisions which are not authorised by the notice of presentation or the order of leave".
After several sentences it is stated
If it should appear that these rules have not been observed, the bill must be withdrawn.
It is my contention that these rules have not been observed and that the Long Title does not accurately describe all that is contained within the Bill. How does the House, which must be supreme in its own House when it is not bound by any Standing Order but solely by practice, as interpreted by you, Mr. Murton, change its practice so that it can deal with a defective title that does not accurately describe the real content and consequences of the Bill for England?

The Chairman: As I have said previously, it is a question of the practice of the House. The practice can be changed by a resolution of the House. On the hon. Gentleman's third point, the Bill is in Committee and the Chairman has no power to withdraw it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would you be prepared to entertain now, Mr. Murton, a manuscript resolution so that the Committee could consider the matter?

The Chairman: No, that is not within the order of reference of the Committee.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Order. I think it is time that we were moving on. I shall take two more points of order.

Mr. Abse: Wittingly or unwittingly, the Leader of the House has allowed a Bill to come before a Committee which quite clearly from all discussions that have been taking place, including the representations made to Mr. Speaker and those now being made to you, Mr. Murton, has caused Members on both sides of the Committee to express anxiety about its title. Mr. Speaker appears to have refused to accept the anxiety that has been expressed by hon. Members representing English constituencies that they may be gagged or restricted when trying to speak up for their constituencies on a matter which impinges so much upon their interests.
I put it to you, Mr. Murton, that the least that the Committee expects of the Leader of the House is not that he should say, "Let's get on with it", which is a very comfortable view when it comes from the Executive and which may be highly desirable from the point of view of someone who wishes merely to get his Bill through, but that he should make a greater contribution to meeting the anxiety that has clearly been expressed.
In your earlier ruling, Mr. Murton, you indicated to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that within the context of Part III it would be possible directly to table amendments dealing with relations with the United Kingdom authorities. You said, Mr. Murton, no doubt correctly, that when it came to Parts I and II it would be possible to

move amendments relevant to the scope of the argument. I am using your words. That is a very different thing. I would ask what is the distinction——

The Chairman: Order. If I might interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that I changed those words to the phrase "the scope of the Bill".

Mr. Abse: I am obliged, Sir. It appeared to me that there was a nice distinction but one which could be of great importance when it came to distinguishing between debates on Part III and debates on Parts I and II.
I was, elliptically, asking my question of the Leader of the House and perhaps the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who obviously had a clear understanding that the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself could be corrected by a more restricted direction along the lines of that suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
Back Benchers may, I hope, through this medium of points of order, look to both right hon. Gentlemen and ask whether we may anticipate overcoming these difficulties by the placing of a suitable direction and by the Leader of the House showing his traditional concern for Back Benchers' rights by co-operating in ensuring that such a direction is made so that these anxieties are removed.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish to raise a different kind of point of order and I hope a constructive one. We all know that Mr. Speaker's Office and the Clerks are extremely helpful, but when I asked for a copy of Mr. Speaker's ruling, one was not forthcoming. Those of us who are not lawyers are at something of a disadvantage in taking in necessarily complicated rulings at first go. When I asked the Clerks for a copy of your ruling, Mr. Murton, with your permission they kindly gave me one.
I should like to point out—not as a complaint: this is not a point of complaint—that it will be much easier for us in the debates that we shall have on this Bill if rulings which have to be made are made available in writing to hon. Members if they ask at the Table.

The Chairman: It will of course be in Hansard tomorrow. I did give the hon.


Member a copy of my ruling but I gave it to him after I had ruled.

Mr. John Lee: Further to the point of order. A few minutes ago, Mr. Murton, you answered a point raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) who had asked whether it was possible for the Committee so to speak to enlarge its powers and to deal with matters which might be imperilled by what is regarded as the defectiveness, in some parts, of the Long Title. You said that there was no power for the House so to do while in Committee. Is it possible for the House to go back into plenary session, so to speak—to come out of Committee—and for a resolution then to be moved enabling this matter to be enlarged?
It is obvious that many hon. Members on both sides, including those like me who support the Bill, are unhappy with the fact that it is self-evident that the Long Title is not a satisfactory Long Title for the Bill.

The Chairman: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order. In giving your rulings, Mr. Murton, you have referred to the precedents in "Erskine May". But this is a unique situation. What we are talking about is not just the scope of the Bill but the scope of the United Kingdom and the scope of the powers of the House of Commons. Therefore, rather than looking at precedents, we should consider the situation before us and if it is the will of the Committee that we should proceed in devolving powers in a different way and if that necessitates an alteration to the Long Title, the House should be given the opportunity for that will to be decided.

The Chairman: If the Bill is so altered, the occasion may arise.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move,
That the Bill be considered in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 23; Schedule 3; Clause 24; Schedules 4 and 5; Clause 25; Schedules 6 and 7; Clause 26; Schedule 8; Clauses 27 to 56; Schedule 9; Clauses 57 to 75; Schedule 10; Clauses 76 to 85; Schedule

11; Clauses 86 and 87; Schedule 12; Clause 88; Schedule 13; Clauses 89 to 96; Schedule 14; Clauses 97 to 115; Schedule 15; new Clauses; new Schedules; and Schedule 16.
I hope that what I say may assist some hon. Members who have raised points of order. I have no complaint at the fact that they have done so, because raising points of order is the way in which anxieties are expressed at the beginning of debates on a major Bill of this character. I was invited to reply on a point of order to these questions, but I do not believe that that would have been the proper way to proceed.
I believe that the motion can assist the House. It envisages a simple and straight forward order of discussion, taking all the clauses in numerical order and slotting in the various schedules with the clauses on which they arise, in accordance with common practice. The one minor exception is that the motion puts Schedule 16, which contains amendments to existing enactments, at the very end, since we believe that to be more convenient. It is a sweeping-up operation which we thought would better be dealt with at the end.
I am in no sense criticising or seeking to modify the rulings given from the Chair, whether by Mr. Speaker or by yourself, Mr. Murton—that is not my business —but I would say on behalf of the Government that we are not seeking to restrict debate on these important questions. Obviously, if the Bill is to go through and to be accepted throughout the country as we hope, it has to be seen that there has been full opportunity for debate and that the House has been able to give its mind to these matters.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose——

Mr. Foot: I will reply specifically to my hon. Friend's point——

Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend give way before he replies to a point which I have not yet made? I accept entirely that he does not wish to restrict discussion and would probably be happy to see the widest possible amendments moved and accepted. But he does not determine that: it is determined by the Chair on the basis of the nature of the Long Title. That is the point that we were trying to get clear. I am afraid that I did not make it clear, but if my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance that the


Chair will agree with what he says, I should be absolutely delighted.

Mr. Foot: I was going to reply to what my hon. Friend had said before and I was hoping to do so in a sense which was helpful to the Committee. I will come to the specific point that he has just raised in a moment. First, I should like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who asked whether our method of proceeding would restrict debate on taxation. Of course, we recognise that that is a major question which has to be discussed and we should have no intention of restricting debate on it. Certainly the Bill has not been drafted with any such intention.
Indeed, as I understand it, it is not even necessary for us to put down a Ways and Means Resolution to ensure that debate shall take place. If it were found to be necessary, we should do so, but I understand that it is not. I hope that my reply will set my hon. Friend's fears at rest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) mentioned the referendum and asked whether, if a motion were moved during these debates asking that England be included in the referendum process, that would be in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton is perfectly correct in saying that I do not interpret the rules of order. That is done by the Chair and I do not question that. If any question which the Committee wished to discuss was ruled out by the rules of order as they prevail at the moment, the Government would take steps to ensure that the Committee was able to debate such matters. That does not mean that we shall lay down new rules of order for the discussion of the whole Bill.
As I said, the placing of the Long Title at the end of the Bill accords with the practice of the House for which there are good grounds. If in the course of our debates on the Bill we found that the provisions of the rules prohibited a debate that was passionately desired on both sides of the Committee, the Government would have to take account of that on a major Bill of this nature. I promise from the start that we should do so. I am not promising to set aside rules

of the House that have prevailed for good reasons.
I hope that the Committee will not think that I am being authoritarian in saying that I hope the discussion on the motion will be fairly short. We are to have a debate later on a major matter concerning the Bill which has been selected by the Speaker. I promise the Committee at the beginning of the debate that we shall do everything in our power to meet its wishes in ensuring that there are no restrictions on any debate it wishes to have.

Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to facilitate discussion upon taxation. The design of the Bill avoids any reference to the Act of Union. I assume the reason for that is that the Government do not want to give the impression that the Bill has anything to do with the break-up of the Union. The Act of Union—unless it has been recently changed—provides certain limitations on the power of taxation. For example, Article VII provides:
That all parts of the United Kingdom be for ever from and after the union liable to the same excises upon all exciseable liquors".
That means that there must be the same taxation throughout the country. Does that affect what the right hon. Gentleman said about introducing amendments to deal with taxation?

Mr. Foot: We have not referred to the Act of Union because we are not proposing to abrogate it. On the Act of Union I speak with great diffidence in the presence of the Lord Advocate who knows even more than I do about that subject, but if there were in the Act of Union any restrictions which prohibited our discussing taxation, we should do our best to overcome them.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the Committee will accept the assurance I have given. I repeat that I make no promise to remove the rules of the House, most of which have been developed for very good reasons. If we got into a jam on a matter that a prominent minority insisted we must debate, we should have to see how we could deal with it. It is partly for that reason that we put down the motion. We set out clearly how we should proceed, but if that method of procedure is found at some stage to be


unsatisfactory for the Committee as a whole, there is a method by which the Committee can take steps to interfere with the procedure for which I am asking approval.

Mr. Grimon: I want to follow up the right hon. Gentleman's welcome announcement that the Government will facilitate discussion which impinges on the general circumstances of the United Kingdom. I understand that he is resisting any amendment to the Title of the Bill. Therefore, it remains a highly restrictive Title. How will he get round that so long as the Title remains unamended?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept that it is restrictive. I do not accept that it is wrong. We have not had an opportunity to debate it and we are not debating it on the motion. I am fully in accord with your ruling, Mr. Murton, that there is an arrangement whereby the Title of Bills is discussed at the end, and there are good reasons for that. The amendments that have been selected to be discussed today are wide-ranging amendments. I do not believe that either the Long Title or the drafting of the Bill will inhibit the Committee from a full discussion of all matters relevant to the Bill including the consequential effects it might have on the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe that such matters will be in order.
If at some point we find that I am wrong about that and there is a restriction which prevents the Committee from being able to proceed in the way it wishes, we shall do our best to meet that difficulty. I do not believe that it would be met by doing what the right hon. Gentleman asks, because I do not accept the argument that the Title is restrictive or wrong. Under our normal procedures the proper time for discussing the Title is at the end.

Dr. Phipps: My right hon. Friend has been extremely helpful, but we are still faced with the rulings we have been given as they apply to specific English or Ulster legislation. I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the case that might arise, for instance, under Clause 18(2). English Members might feel it necessary to have a specific piece of English legislation to protect themselves and their con

stituents in connection with matters that are being devolved to Scotland. As I understand the rulings, we should not be able to do that. Can the Leader of the House help us on this?

Mr. Foot: I am not questioning the rulings that have already been given by the Chair. I am sure that they are accurate rulings. The Committee would do well to study them. I do not believe that those rulings will be restrictive of debate. When we come to Clause 18, my hon. Friend will be able to put down amendments and we shall see what is the situation. If we found at some stage during the course of the debate that the rules that are applied in other instances inhibit serious general debate, we should have to look at them. I hope on that basis we can proceed.
The first group of amendments selected by the Chair is wide-ranging. None of the questions raised that cause anxiety impinges upon that group of amendments, so I hope that the Committee will proceed on that basis. We are discussing procedural questions. The sooner we can move to the discussion of questions of merit and to amendments which hon. Members seek to make under the present rules, the sooner we shall discover the reality of the situation, which is that the Committee will have the fullest opportunity of discussing these matters.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is being helpful, but how will he discover whether the Title and the rules are restrictive? The one way in which he can find that out is to listen to the arguments—and how much better to listen to the arguments now, at the beginning, before we come to the Bill proper.

Mr. Foot: If the House in its wisdom in previous centuries had thought that the right way to deal with a Bill was to take all the arguments on the procedural motion at the beginning, the hon. Gentleman's comments would have great force, but that has not been procedure devised by the House of Commons over the years. The House has devised a system in which some procedural measures are discussed at the beginning so that one may see which measures are in order and which are not. When Charles Stewart Parnell was asked how he had become


such a great authority on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, he replied "I learned so much about the Standing Orders by breaking them". That is one way of going about the matter, although I am not suggesting that any hon. Member has done anything of the kind today.
If we examine the selection of amendments, we cannot suggest that there has been any restriction. I hope that we shall proceed to debate the amendments, but I repeat my assurance that the desire of the Government is that we should have the fullest possible discussion. I do not believe that the rules of the House will be restrictive. Indeed, I hope that our rules will help us to guide our discussions, so that we do not discuss everything at the same time.
What happened on earlier points of order and in the preliminary procedural discussions was that some hon. Members tried to raise matters that will be in order for discussion at a later stage. But we cannot now settle those matters holus-bolus in one procedural motion.
I ask the House to proceed to deal with this Bill in the same traditional manner as we have dealt with previous Bills. In my opinion there is much more wisdom in the traditional procedures of the House than some hon. Members give the House credit for. Some of these procedures have enabled orderly debates to take place, and I hope that that will happen on this occasion.

Mr. Onslow: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity of poacher turned gamekeeper, to help the House a little further on the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)? Is the right hon. Gentleman advising the House that, in his opinion, the Bill is so drafted as to preclude any possibility of an amendment being in order, let alone being carried, that would have the effect of requiring consequential amendment to the Act of Union? If we knew that at the outset, it might save further discussion later.

Mr. Foot: I shall not make a judgment—and it would be wrong for any Leader of the House to do so—about hypothetical amendments that might be tabled in the future. It is scope rather than Title which determines what is in order, as was made clear by the Chair

a little earlier. I believe that we should proceed with this Bill in the way in which the House of Commons has proceeded with previous Bills. Members will table amendments, there will be a selection, and discussion will take place.
When we examine the first group of amendments, we surely cannot claim that there is any great restriction being imposed on debate. Indeed, the House by continuing discussion on procedural matters is imposing some restriction on itself. I hope that we shall liberate ourselves from that bondage as speedily as we can and quickly come to the first group of amendments. As we proceed, I believe that many fears will be dissipated.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not doubt my right hon. Friend's sincerity when he says that he does not want to prohibit discussion, but is it not the case that these matters are not entirely in his gift but will be determined by the Chair? Therefore, are we to have guidelines as to what is and what is not in order? We have had experience of different interpretations as between different Chairmen. Therefore, should we not get the matter clear? I do not in any way criticise the Chair, but it would be advisable to have clear guidelines. We face a problem on this issue because, for example, you, Mr. Murton, by a slip of the tongue, spoke of scope for argument rather than scope for the Bill. There is a great deal of argument about what is within its scope and what is not.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair rather than the Lord President.

Mr. Dalyell: I am.

The Chairman: Within the discretion of the Chair, guidelines will be given as the debate continues. I hope that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman and that we shall be able to keep the matter right.

Mr. Pym: I hope that the Lord President will feel that my brief interventions in this debate have been helpful. I thought that when many points of order were being raised the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be sitting in his place as though nothing were happening. Therefore, I thought that it would be helpful for him to intervene.
The right hon. Gentleman in moving the Government motion could have given more adequate reasons in seeking to show why the arguments about the validity of the Long Title were wrong. I think that this is the moment when he should give that information.
The order in which the right hon. Gentleman has placed the clauses and schedules seems to be reasonable and sensible, and I do not raise that matter as a point of order. However, it cannot be denied that in the last couple of hours we have been arguing why the Long Title does not represent any accurate description of the scope of the Bill. This is why many hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued that we should take amendments to the Long Title first.
The Lord President was right to say that there are very good reasons behind the rules and practices of the House of Commons for taking these matters at the end rather than at the beginning of a Bill. But I emphasise that it has been made extremely clear in this debate that the Long Title of this Bill is not accurate. If we pass this motion and proceed to the debates—and I shall be glad to do so at the earliest possible moment—there will be no further chance to discuss the procedures in a major way.
The right hon. Gentleman said in a helpful tone that if there were any passionate desire to take a certain course, or if amendments were found to be too restrictive in terms of discussion, he would in a benevolent spirit act in a miraculous way to try to find some way round the problem. I am certain that, when that situation is reached, he will not want to find a way round it, because there will be plenty of other arguments going on.
We should have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to how he sees himself intervening in this benevolent way. I remember sitting through a series of points of order on the European Communities Bill, when I sat in the corner seat above the Gangway. Those points of order did not end just after six o'clock in the evening but at breakfast time the next morning. We do not want that sort of thing to occur again, from whichever side of the House. How is the right hon.

Gentleman to make these adjustments if the House has a passionate desire, as he calls it, to debate a measure relating to Northern Ireland or a part of England, and the Chairman has ruled it out of order? Will the right hon. Gentleman come forward with a motion?
It is not a good idea to alter the Standing Orders. I have criticised him for setting aside Standing Orders which proved inconvenient to the Government. But the proposal to take the Long Title first is not like altering Standing Orders. It would be a commonsense adjustment to our practice in view of the significant fact that the scope of the Bill is not truly reflected by the wording of the Long Title. This is a legitimate grievance.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has an adequate answer, but we have not had it yet, and we ought to have it before we pass this motion, because it is difficult to see at what other stage we shall be able to raise it, or, if a situation arises when an hon. Member wants to raise a matter of this kind, how the right hon. Gentleman is to handle it without coming forward with a special motion, which would seem rather unnecessary. It seems to many of us that if the matter of the Long Title were dealt with at this stage, we would be satisfied with the arrangements proposed in this motion, which I support.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to the motion in its entirety, but he asked me to respond on another matter which he happened to raise incidentally—the question of the Long Title. What is in order and discussable is, as the Chair has stated, determined by the scope of the Bill and not its Title. The fears about the Title of the Bill are misplaced, but I would add that I do not believe that this is the proper moment to discuss it. It is not the proper moment according to the normal methods of the House.
I do not believe that we shall get into any difficulties on that account. Therefore, I suggest that we should proceed. If we do get into difficulties, we shall have to face them, but I do not believe that we shall. This motion is a different matter. It is not about the Title or scope of the Bill. It is a restricted motion about the order of business. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he is 100 per cent. in favour of the motion,


and I hope that on that basis the Committee will agree to it. Then we can proceed to discuss some of the merits of the Bill. If we do proceed in that way, I think that hon. Members will see for themselves how wide is the discussion tolerated under the rules of the House.

Mr. Pym: With some of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I agree, but there was a manuscript amendment, which was not selected, in relation to the Long Title. The right hon. Gentleman used the words "passionate desire". There has been a passionate desire this afternoon to require a justification for the Long Title and in refutation of the fears that the Long Title may be inaccurate. If we pass this motion and get on to the substance of the Bill, the stage at which we shall be able to deal with the Long Title will be months away, when we come to the end of the Committee stage.
6.15 p.m.
If the right hon. Gentleman is asserting that if there is any validity in the doubts about the Long Title it will in no way restrict debate on any matter dealing with the government of the United Kingdom, or restrict the Chair in selecting any amendment germane to the government of the United Kingdom, he has no power to say so, in the first place, but even if he had, it seems to me that in those circumstances the Chair might very well not be exactly carrying out the practice of the House. That is why we say that if the Long Title is not considered at this stage it will be a long time before the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to justify himself and reply to the criticisms.
There will be many instances when it will be out of order to go back to the fundamental aspect of this Bill—that is, the effect of the changes in the government of Wales and Scotland on the rest of the United Kingdom. It is that fact that the House has shown itself unsatisfied about. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say more now, in justification of the Long Title. A passionate desire has been expressed for such a justification. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give it now, there will not be another opportunity for a long time to come.

Mr. Heffer: At the risk of being accused of filibustering—my hon. Friend

the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that there was no danger of filibustering, although the Bill will go on for a long time—may I say that I believe that my right hon. Friend is genuinely trying to meet the points raised by many hon. Members, but point out that the final decision is made not by him but by the Chair? Therefore, we shall be proceeding in the dark, hoping that amendments, or debates, or speeches are in order and that we shall not be constantly interrupted by the Chair saying "The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He is going beyond the narrow terms of the Long Title."
How we can possibly discuss such a constitutional issue as the establishment of Assemblies in Wales and Scotland without having the right to say how it will affect the rest of the United Kingdom, I do not know. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in what he said, and we shall have to proceed on the basis that he suggests, for I do not think that we can get much further now in discussing the question of the Long Title. We must hope that it will all work out as we want it to, but if it does not, hon. Members will have to call on my right hon. Friend to suspend the work of the Committee until a procedural motion has been introduced to take into consideration and meet the points that we have made.
I have a feeling, in studying the clauses—I say this for the benefit of my local newspaper, which, from time to time, prints lists of Division records of hon. Members—that on this Bill my Division record is going to be almost nil unless I am voting for an amendment of which I am in favour. I am not very enamoured of this Bill at all; therefore I am not likely to be trudging through the corridors supporting the Government in its various clauses. I might do so on an odd clause.
I am saying this strictly for the benefit of my local newspaper, so that it can record that the number of times I vote on this Bill may not be very large. That does not mean that I will not be in the House, taking part in debates, and that I will not have something to say. I have a feeling that I shall have quite a lot to say on the matters which are affecting my constituents and the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not


want anyone to hold up the Bill by a filibuster.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord President is fully aware, we did not hold up the Bill to reform the House of Lords. No one could accuse us of filibustering on that occasion. No one thought of making lengthy speeches to hold up that Bill, and it would be reprehensible for anyone to suggest that we should do that on this occasion. I appeal to hon. Members not to adopt that course. The Bill on that occasion did not meet with universal support, and ultimately the Government had to drop it. I do not know whether the Government will have to drop this Bill; I believe that in the end they may well get it.
We must examine the Bill in great detail, clause by clause, and see how it affects the people of every part of the United Kingdom. We must ensure that it is in their best interests. The only way to get a good Bill will be by proper, careful and minute examination, and I trust that that is what the Committee will do when finally we pass this motion.

Mr. William Ross: I have listened to over two hours of the debate on points of order and I have not intervened. That must be a record for me, because I could never resist points of order——

Mr. Abse: My right hon. Friend made a sedentary interruption.

Mr. Ross: That sedentary interruption was. I think, valued by the Chair, because I suggested that the hon. Member in question was referring not to the scope of the argument but to the scope of the Bill.
I have not intervened on the points of order because I thought the rulings of the Chair were right. I think that my right hon. Friend was helpful when he intervened, and I warn those who are concerned about the scope for amendment not to draw too much attention to something which they think will restrict them. Over the years that I worked on Bills I would have hated it to be laid down that the Long Title strictly determined whether or not my amendments were in order.
I have taken part in the Committee stage of as many Bills as any hon. Mem

ber present. I took part in the Committee stage of every Scottish Bill from 1946 until 1962 or 1963. That enables me to speak from a certain amount of experience. The Long Title is taken last because at that stage one is in a position to see whether it reflects what is in the Bill. I have known Long Titles to be changed where amendments, carried in the course of the Committee stage, made that appropriate. I can think of nothing more nonsensical than to start talking about the Long Title now and to tie it down at this stage. That would rule out what might be desirable changes during the course of the Bill.
People do not pay so much attention now to Money Resolutions as they used to. In terms of restricting amendments, Money Resolutions are much more important than are Long Titles. The scope of the Bill and its purpose are what matter, and it is the interpretation of the scope and the purpose of the Bill that determines whether amendments are relevant.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his patience. He has been far more patient than I would have been in the circumstances. For a change, I am supporting the Chair, but I warn you, Mr. Murton, that that will last for only about three minutes.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I may make a constructive suggestion. None of us doubts the good faith of my right hon. Friend the Lord President in what he has offered. However, after listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) I realise that there is a problem here. Perhaps the basis of the problem is that the offer that the Lord President has made is not really within his gift to make; it is within the gift of yourself, Mr. Murton, and Mr. Speaker. I suggest, therefore, that over the weekend you and Mr. Speaker and your advisers study what has been said about the problem of scope. If a resolution of the House is needed to bring vital argument within the scope of the Bill, you or Mr. Speaker could then make a statement on Tuesday, before we begin again, giving your view.

Mr. Abse: I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock


(Mr. Ross) saying that he thinks we are being jejune in drawing attention to what is likely to be restrictive, and in particular in drawing attention to possible inadequacies in the Long Title. I, too, have my experiences. With the Bills that I have had to steer, usually without the benefit of draftsmen or officials, my experience has taught me the importance of the Long Title. I do not treat the matter with the insouciance that my right hon. Friend brings to it.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, and said it surely in its proper place, that we are discussing the procedures for dealing with the Bill. I think that is relevant. Why have we not heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House why he is so utterly confident that the Long Title is both correct and so drawn that it will not inhibit us in any reasonable amendment that we put forward. He has indicated—I am sure in good faith—that if we encounter obstacles, provided apparently that we express our arguments passionately, that he will seek to make adjustments. I do not know when they will be regarded as being passionately expressed, warmly expressed or tepidly expressed. What I do not like is that we should be treating a Bill of this importance in an ad hoc manner in which, apparently, what we may do will be dependent to some extent upon the caprice of the executive.
I do not like the House to operate on an ad hoc basis. It needs a structure and form. The reason we have developed our practices and Standing Orders is that we know we are lost unless we have a framework within which we operate and which we understand. If we do not have a ground plan upon which we are constructing this Bill we are being invited to walk into an increasing mire. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may attempt to extricate us, but I do not think that that is the way to proceed. If the usual channels are not effective enough to sort this matter out perhaps the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire should take an initiative to make clear that this House must, by motion or resolution, have a precise idea of the rules by which we are operating.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is generous and honest. When

he gives an assurance, as he did today, he means it. But the House should not operate upon the generosity of any man; it must operate according to its rules. This afternoon deep anxiety has been expressed because we believe that to some extent we are in a straitjacket as far as Members representing English constituencies are concerned.
We have had no apologia or explanation why we have had a Long Title to the Bill which, by its nature, is bound to provoke feelings of disquiet—rightly or wrongly—among hon. Members representing English constituencies.
6.30 p.m.
During the exchanges that we had when discussing the business of the House I indicated that there is now a desire on the part of some Welsh Members that the Bill should be divided. The direction will be coming before the House. It is quite clear that such a direction will considerably impinge upon this procedural motion. I hope that when the Leader of the House looks at that direction, he will examine what the Prime Minister has said could be done—the bringing about of a disengagement. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at it in the light of this procedural resolution.
I do not believe that we shall be able to proceed effectively, and with any real sense of order, when as the procedural motion makes clear, we shall be dealing with clauses that will shift us from one moment to another from amendments dealing with the Welsh language to the powers that will be taken in a Scottish legislature.
I see no reason why Wales should—in language that will be used by the Welsh nationalists—fight to liberate itself from London in order that it should come under the control of Edinburgh. That is not good enough. That is why we have repeatedly sought, by representations both privately and in this House, to get two Bills. The stubbornness that has been displayed in getting the two Bills entangled has led to the present situation, in which we have a procedural motion concerning the way in which the matter should be dealt with.
When the motion is accepted I hope it will be understood that I and many


Welsh Members will still seek an opportunity to disengage these two Bills as they should be. There should be one Bill for Scotland and one for Wales, so that people in Wales will know that at the end of the day the House of Commons has adequately considered all the issues that impinge upon Wales.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) attempted I to give a prognostication. I would also give one, now that we are considering how we shall be spending our time ahead. The time will come when the Leader of the House will be pleading that we are not perhaps moving at the rate that he would like. He will tell us that it is right that there should be a guillotine. My right hon. Friend can expect no sympathy from many hon. Members on this side of the House if he does not take the immediate steps necessary to disentangle these two Bills.
Many hon. Members on the Government side of the House feel that Scotland has one case and Wales another. The Leader of the House is inviting trouble that he could avoid. It will be no good his making pleas at a later stage when the opportunities are now available for a more rational way of Proceeding— [a1]dividing the two Bills.
I look with some concern at this procedural motion, because I do not think it is adequate. I look with greater concern at the fact that the Leader of the House, who has given so much consideration to the Bill, has still not told us why he is so confident and certain that the Title is right and that there is nothing within that Title that inhibits hon. Members representing English constituencies from putting their point of view.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, I hope that consideration will be given between now and next week to the rulings that have been given today. I hope that consideration will be given to what may be needed to make certain that we have a proper framework within which to work. I hope that my hon. Friend's plea will be taken seriously.
Improvisation is not the method that should be the province within which an important constitutional Bill of this kind should operate.

Dr. Phipps: The Leader of the House has been helpful by saying that he would consider ways in which matters that you, Mr. Murton, and your colleagues, found unacceptable could be discussed in the context of the Bill. What concerns me and other English Members is that included in Clause 1 is the statement that what goes on after the Bill is enacted will
not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
I am an opponent of the Bill in general. I do not wish to see it enacted. However, I accept that it may be enacted. If it is to be enacted I want to see changes that will specifically protect the unity of the United Kingdom and, in particular, specifically protect England and English interests which I represent within my constituency.
The rulings that we have had this afternoon, both from you, Mr. Murton, and Mr. Speaker, suggest that an amendment dealing specifically with England would not be acceptable and would therefore need some other device to be brought before the House. How does the Leader of the House intend to go about bringing such a matter before the House? In particular, at what stage in the procedure that he is laying down will matters of this sort be introduced into the Bill? We shall want to know exactly what provision will be made for England and also, I am sure, for Northern Ireland before we are prepared to accept other matters within the Bill.
I do not believe it would be sufficient to have these things discussed after the Bill has been passed. I am assuming that these matters are ones that you, Mr. Murton, or Mr. Speaker, would not be prepared to see discussed. What device would the Leader of the House use to put them in the Bill?
We have been promised a referendum. When does the Leader of the House see the clause with regard to the referendum being introduced? Will it be part of the proceedure that he has laid down today? The earlier that we can discuss the referendum the more it will affect——

Mr. Foot: I think I dealt with my hon. Friend's earlier point by what I said previously. With regard to the referendum, the normal way by which an amendment on the referendum will be dealt with will be by a new clause. That


would be the best way of dealing with it. However, if there were a desire that it should be dealt with in some other way at an earlier stage, that might be done. But that is our present arrangement and our present intention. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Dr. Phipps: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Perhaps I may complete my remark, however. I was asking that provision for a referendum should be included in the new clauses. I hope that it will be before the Committee as early as possible, because the form that it takes will affect the way in which amendments are tabled and the attitude which right hon. and hon. Members take to the further passage of the Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: We hit difficulties earlier because this is a difficult Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been most helpful in offering his reasoning of the issue, which is highly satisfactory. However, there are obvious difficulties, because this is an unusual Bill. It means that the very reasonable procedure whereby we can change the Title of the Bill towards the concluding stages of its passage so that it adequately describes the picture as it has changed during our debates and as a result of the revisions that we have made is not really adequate for a general measure of this nature.
Unless the Title is broadened, it prohibits an area of discussion effectively on the Bill. However, I am sure that given the reasonable nature of this debate, that should not present too much of a problem since there is general recognition that we have moved on from the time in the whole devolution debate when those who were particularly zealous about devolution both in Scotland and Wales and to some extent in England could presume that it was a matter which could be fairly easily shuffled off to become the preoccupation of the Celtic fringe. We have had it demonstrated today, as it will be demonstrated on many other occasions, that there are wider interests to be taken into account.
Since we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) has done and as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has

done, discussing the whole approach to the Bill, my own approach is that this Committee stage is not only a Committee stage but is an integral part of the referendum campaign. For me, the referendum campaign begins effectively today. I appear to be the only Welshman for whom the referendum campaign begins today, because I see that in today's Western Mail a number of my compatriots have spent a substantial amount of money——

Mr. Fred Evans: A very mixed bag.

Mr. Kinnock: I am informed that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) is something of an expert on bags.

Mr. Heffer: What kind of bags?

Mr. Kinnock: Coal bags, of course.

Mr. Buchan: Saucepan bags.

Mr. Kinnock: In case it should not have been heard clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said "Saucepan bags". I do not think that the Committee should lose that because of any inadequacy in the public address system.
I was saying that many of my compatriots have spent a considerable sum of money promoting this advertisement. I am glad to see this novel enthusiasm for a referendum. It may be that, if in the last two years during which I and some of my colleagues have been fighting to get a referendum, we had had this kind of financial and manpower support, we might have secured it by now and the people of Wales might have made a democratic decision on the matter. But, better late than never. We look forward to joining battle.
It has been said already that this devolution question is often a problem of definition, not least for this House itself, its whole approach to the Bill and specifically its approach to the Title of the Bill. But that affects not only this House. We have the problem of my compatriots who have advertised in the Western Mail and who believe that
an unanswerable case exists for a real extension of democracy.…
That present arrangements for accountability to the existing governmental administration in Wales—is wholly unsatisfactory.


That as Parliament grapples with the increasing volume and complexity of European legislation it is unrealistic to expect it to devote more time to Welsh affairs",
and so on—so much so that there can be very few who could broadly disagree wth these propositions. We who represent Welsh constituencies are all in favour of more democracy, more accountability, more compassionate efficiency of government and more attention to Welsh affairs. We are also in favour of escaping from the grave economic depression affecting Wales and the misery, tragedy and deprivation that that causes.
The answer from my compatriots comes in the form of a Welsh Assembly, in that
Welsh economic and social problems as well as the problem of accountability cannot be met through any reform of the procedures of one central Parliament"—
I do not know of anyone who suggests that they can—and, therefore
That the situation in Wales demands the establishment of a directly-elected Welsh Assembly".
In our approach to the Committee stage of this Bill, those are some of the considerations which will have to be taken into account. I venture near the very perimeters of order when I say that we have an opportunity in this Bill——

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Bedwelity (Mr. Kinnock) is in danger of snapping them.

Mr. Kinnock: Stretched perimeters are often a major feature of democracy, Mr. Murton. But I will not take that to excess, other than to say that it has been most fortunate for you, as one who will share many long hours with us, to get a sample of the general approach which will be taken by right hon. and hon. Members during the Committee stage, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for entering into the spirit of the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: The Lord President referred to a new clause on the referendum. When can we expect, that new clause to be introduced?

Dr. Phipps: I have already asked my right hon. Friend that question.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The motion before the Committee is very clear, but I

for one disagree with it. I should have preferred that before Clauses 1 and 2 we should consider the Title of the Bill.
There has been some debate on this matter, and I do not want to weary the Committee, let alone to irritate you, Mr. Murton, by reverting to the matter of the Title. But I think that it is in order to say that I disagree with this proposal, because I should have liked to see the matter of the Title being clarified before we went on to discuss Clauses 1 and 2.
I should like to give notice that, with some of my hon. Friends, I shall seek to raise the matter again next week. Following your own ruling that we are not here dependent upon some Standing Order but merely upon the practice of the House, I shall seek to ensure that there is a debate upon that practice of the House so that we may be able to make a decision that the Long Title is amendable if we come to the conclusion that it does not describe accurately the contents of the Bill.
My other objection to the motion concerns a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He said that from his point of view the referendum campaign was starting now. However, it cannot start now because there is no new clause in the Bill to enable it to start now.
If there is to be a new clause dealing, for example, with a referendum or with some of the other matters which affect English constituencies, we should not have to wait until the very end of the Bill to deal with it and with other new clauses. Once again we are bound by the conventions of the House and not by Standing Orders. It is the normal practice that we do not deal with new clauses until we have disposed of all other amendments during a Committee stage. However, in this case, I believe that the referendum is so crucial a matter and that whether English people are to be excluded from that referendum is so important to many English Members that we should not have to wait week after week and month after month but that we should have the relevant new clause before us at an early stage.
The Leader of the House sought to be helpful. He indicated that if, after listening to the representations of hon. Members, he concluded that new clauses


should be introduced not in the normal order but in a different order, he would bring what I presume will be a procedural motion before the House to enable us to to that.
Although I respect the desire of the Leader of the House to be helpful, he has reserved wholly to himself and the Government the decision whether the new clause ought to be taken earlier. This is a matter for the House as a whole. I am not content to accept that it should lie wholly and exclusively with the Leader of the House to decide whether we should get to the new clause rather earlier on a matter so vital as the referendum.
That is why I should have liked the motion to include the possibility that some of the new clauses could be taken after the portions of the Bill to which they pertain rather than be relegated to the end. The Leader of the House has sensibly divided the Bill logically and organically into sections that fall to be discussed together, but it would be more convenient to the Committee and it could be more helpful if a new clause that was relevant to a section of the Bill under discussion could be taken at the same time. I ask the Leader of the House to consider that suggestion.

The Chairman: Order. I intervene to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). For the record, I want to correct a ruling that I gave in reply to him when he asked whether the rules about the Long Title derive from practice or from Standing Orders. My answer was that they derive from practice, but I ought to add that Standing Order No. 42 is also directly relevant. The Committee probably knows that, but I should like to place it firmly on the record.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It might be helpful if we could be told what the Standing Order says.

Mr. Foot: I could read it to the House. It bears on our whole discussion and bears out what both I and the Chair have said:
All committees to which bills may be committed or referred for consideration on report shall have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit, provided they be relevant to the subject matter of the bill: but if any such amendments shall not be within the long title of the bill, they shall amend

the long title accordingly, and report the same specially to the House.
That is the basis upon which I gave my reply and it is the basis upon which the Chair ruled at the beginning. The Government are not proposing that we should proceed on an ad hoc basis. We propose to proceed according to Standing Orders. I do not retract or qualify anything that I have said. The Standing Order indicates the way in which the House can proceed.
As to the referendum, I hope that we can bring discussion on it to an end for the present. It is not for me to say whether the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was in order, but that speech would have been even more in order on Tuesday, when we hope to reach the matter. Perhaps by that time he will have a new speech, or he will have been converted. On Tuesday he will be so much in order that I shall not complain if he repeats today's speech word for word. But that is a different matter.
Of course, I understand the interest that the Committee has in the referendum. Work is proceeding on the new clause that the Government will recommend to the Committee and I shall take into account the representations that have been made today. I cannot promise when it will be put on the Order Paper. We might consider taking it earlier. That might be a reasonable proposition. If so, the procedures of the Committee would enable us to do so perfectly well. The motion that we ask the Committee to pass now would not prohibit it.
Right hon. and hon. Members who have seen major Bills go through the House know that the Government and others can propose ways in which procedures can be altered in order to assist the situation. Many of the procedures laid down are greatly to our benefit. That is why I have said nothing further about the Long Title. We think it is proper and correct, but, as Standing Order 42 indicates, if it is found that the subject matter of the Bill is injured by the Long Title there are procedures for altering that. I fully acknowledge that point.
I do not question the fears and anxieties genuinely felt by right hon. and hon. Members. There are major controversies in the country about the Bill,


and the Government do not think that a Bill of this character can be carried without discussion in the House. I did not intend to make a further speech now; I intended merely to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty. I ask the Committee that, after my reply, we should proceed, because many of the matters that have been raised today would be more relevant for discussion under the clauses and amendments that have been selected by the Chair. Anybody looking at them can see how wide discussion on them may be.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I appreciate what the Leader of the House has said in relation to Standing Order No. 42, but that surely means, in effect, that the Long Title can be altered only after discussion of amendments. Therefore, amendments relevant to the Bill will be out of order and never discussed. That is the point that we have been considering, and that is what will happen. I suspect that the Leader of the House is about to tell us that this need not necessarily happen, but it is bound to be the case as the Long Title stands.

Mr. Foot: I respect the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) when she intervenes on procedural matters, because she has been an occupant of the Chair and she knows how these things operate. But it is the Government's view—and such indications have been given by the Chair today—that that is not the case. This was taken into account when the amendments were put down. Anyone can judge that fact by looking at the selected amendments.
This is the only way to proceed. If we find ourselves in hopeless difficulties we shall have to overcome them, and the House has the means of doing so. But we cannot lay down in this motion the means of overcoming all those difficulties in the future, nor could we do so by the proposal to alter the Long Title, because that would beg the question. We say that the Title is perfectly proper. On that basis, and particularly because the Opposition spokesman has said that he absolutely agrees with the motion—we do not often have absolute agreement from the Opposition Front Bench on anything that we propose, but because we have his absolute, unanimous, unquali

fied agreement, or at least his generous support—I hope that we can proceed to carry the motion and move on to discuss the merits of the Bill. Then the Committee will see how wide the discussions may be.

7 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I do not seek to detain the Committee further on this point, but my mind was not put at ease by the intervention of the Leader of the House or by your ruling and reference to Standing Order No. 42, Mr. Murton.
I want to see the Bill on the statute book, and I accept the Leader of the House's generous description of his future behaviour and that he will seek to give us every opportunity to amend and improve the Bill in Committee.
However, in the ignorance of a Back Bencher who is not versed in the strict niceties of rulings from the Chair and procedures of the House, I am worried that some of the amendments that I should like to see included may be ruled out of order because they do not fall within the ambit of Standing Order No. 42.
The Lord President is shaking his head, but he has not given me the confidence that I have no need to worry about this matter. I am concerned that the Long Title is not correct. If we are providing by legislation for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales, we must, by that action, be producing consequential changes for the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, since it will save my having to make a speech on this subject. Surely the important word in the Standing Order is "relevant". The Long Title says that the Bill provides for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales. The fact that such a provision may necessitate changes in relation to England automatically makes those changes relevant and amendments in the English context may properly be called. They are consequential upon and tied up with the provision for Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Unfortunately, I was watching him while he was


speaking, and I did not see whether the Lord President was indicating agreement with what the hon. Gentleman said. The Lord President is nodding now, and that helps, because a nod is as good as a wink from the right hon. Gentleman.
I intend to be present for as much time as I can find during the coming months to watch the Bill's progress and to see that it is improved. I do not want to feel, however, that if, for example, I wish to table amendments to reduce the representation of Scotland and Wales in this House consequent upon the changes proposed in the Bill, they will be ruled out of order because they have nothing to do with changes in the government of Scotland and Wales.

Dr. Phipps: That is the nub of what we are discussing. It is not a question whether a matter is consequent upon the proposals in the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that if there were provisions that he wished to insert for purposes that were not necessarily consequent upon the Bill, he would be able to do so?

Mr. Crouch: Again, I was not watching the Lord President during that intervention. I can see that we shall have to keep a close eye on him. I think that he was half nodding, but I must not impute nods where there is none. The concern which I have expressed remains, to some extent.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Thank you for amending your earlier ruling and for drawing attention to Standing Order No. 42, which makes plain that if you or Mr. Speaker judge an amendment to be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill you will permit a debate to take place upon it.
An amendment may touch upon matters pertaining to England or the United Kingdom, or, as was implied by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), to equality of treatment for the English. These are not necessarily consequential, but they may be matters of compatibility. If you allowed a debate to take place on such amendments and it transpired that they did not, under Standing Order No. 42, fall within the Long Title, the Committee would have the power immediately to amend the Long Title and to report that fact back to the House.

The Chairman: That would be at the end.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not sure at what stage that would occur, but there is nothing in Standing Order No. 42 which appears to mean that it must be only at the end.

The Chairman: That is the practice.

Mr. Griffiths: I am relying strictly upon the wording of the Standing Order. If any such amendment did not fall within the Long Title, the Committee could amend the Long Title and so report to the House. There is nothing that implies that this can be done only at the end. It is left open to the Committee to determine whether it wishes to amend the Long Title.

The Chairman: I shall endeavour to help the hon. Gentleman. Practice and the Standing Order are intertwined, and it is done at the end.

Mr. Griffiths: I have argued that it should be open to the House, which is supreme in its own affairs, to change its practices. You courteously pointed out to me, Mr. Murton, that it was not solely a matter of changes in the practice of the House but that Standing Order No. 42 was also relevant. As I always follow your suggestions and directions, I examined the Standing Order and, far from finding it unhelpful, I found it extremely beneficial to my case. It says precisely what I have always supposed to be the case—that if the Committee is not satisfied with the Long Title it can change it.
Nothing within the Standing Order—though possibly within practice—says that it must be at the end.

The Chairman: Order. I was just going to say that it would be done as a result of amendments made to the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: I realise that it could arise only if amendments were made. If an amendment were carried that was outwith the Long Title, it would be for the Committee to amend the Long Title and so report to the House.
No doubt this is the wrong time and place to bandy about these points. However, many of us who respect and understand the deep feelings of the people of Scotland and Wales and who wish to see them given expression in more democratic


ways are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the Bill on the United Kingdom as a whole and upon our constituencies in particular.
I am pressing these procedural points—and the procedures of the House are central to its manner of legislating—simply because I find it almost impossible to conceive that changes can be made in the government of Scotland and Wales without inevitably having repercussions on the government of England. I shall need to be persuaded again and again during our consideration of the Bill that it is possible in one body politic to make changes to the heart—which I might perhaps attribute to the Welsh—and to the head—which I might attribute to the Scots—that will not affect the rest of the entity. That is why again and again we come back to the point that a large number of hon. Members on both sides want to be assured at the beginning that we shall not be prevented by the way in which the rules are being laid down, and by the way in which the deck is being stacked, from raising these very proper matters about the possible effects of the Bill upon England and the whole of the United Kingdom.
We need a great deal of reassurance on this point. The Lord President has come some way towards giving it, although, as he has stood the procedure of the House on its head for his own purposes on numerous occasions—on some occasions that hon. Members regarded as scandalous—it is very difficult to accept from him that the procedures of the House are so important and sacrosanct, and that we should change them only with great reluctance. He is the great changer of procedure, the person who has set aside the practice of the House of Commons. Yet in this matter, where it suits him, he takes refuge in the practice that has been built up over the centuries and says that it ought not to be changed, though we are dealing with the most fundamental changes in the government of the United Kingdom.
I do not apologise for having pursued these procedural points. I am grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for having drawn attention to the advantages to my case of Standing Order No. 42. I would prefer to see the batting order rearranged so that there is no question in the mind of

any English Member that matters pertaining to the government of the United Kingdom and England will be excluded from the fullest discussion.

Mr. Ioan Evans: It is important that we get the matter right at the beginning and do not rush into what is a major constitutional issue. It has been said that this is a unique Bill. We have not discussed a constitutional Bill of this nature for hundreds of years, as the Government's White Paper said.
I am concerned about the procedure for the selection of amendments. Will the normal criteria for the selection of amendments in Committee upstairs operate on the Floor of the House? Members feel very deeply about certain amendments and the chance that the Chair may not select them.

The Chairman: I can give the hon. Member and the Committee my personal assurance that the normal procedures will be followed and that the most deep and careful consideration will be given to every amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Bill be considered in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 23; Schedule 3; Clause 24; Schedules 4 and 5; Clause 25; Schedules 6 and 7; Clause 26; Schedule 8; Clauses 27 to 56; Schedule 9; Clauses 57 to 75; Schedule 10; Clauses 76 to 85; Schedule 11; Clauses 86 and 87; Schedule 12; Clause 88; Schedule 13; Clauses 89 to 96; Schedule 14; Clauses 97 to 115; Schedule 15; new Clauses; new Schedules; and Schedule 16.

Clause 1

EFFECT OF ACT

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I beg to move Amendment No. 351, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'Scotland and'.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 352, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'parts' and insert 'part'.
No. 54, in Clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out 'a Scottish Assembly and'.
No. 70, in Clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out 'Scotland and'.


No. 72, in Clause 2, page 1, line 20, leave out 'respectively'.
No. 91, in Clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out 'Scottish or'.
No. 254, in Schedule 1, page 69, line 6, leave out 'for Scotland or the Boundary Commission'.
No. 260, in Schedule 1, page 69, line 29, leave out from '1972' to 'shall' in line 31.
No. 262, in Schedule 1, page 70, line 2, leave out 'Scotland and'.

Mr. Sproat: We are setting out on what will be a very long and, I suspect, very rough journey. The amount of time taken by the discussion that we have already had this afternoon and the problems that we have had with what would normally be fairly straightforward procedural matters indicate some of the snares, dangers and absurdities into which the Bill will lead us.
I am glad that the first amendment to be considered is to leave out Scotland from any of the effects of the Bill. It is clearly one of the most important amendments, and it is appropriate that it is the first to be considered. It contains within its fairly broad ambit many of the important principles which we shall be considering.
It has been said this afternoon that no one will have to filibuster during this Committee stage. I am aware of the difficulties of trying to compress within a reasonable length of time all that I want to say. I shall leave to other hon. Members many of the fair and apt points which I could make.
Before I give some of the reasons why Scotland should be left out, I want to place on record one of the reasons why I find the Bill so detestable. It is that as a Member for a Scottish seat, I know that the prime motive for the Bill is fear—fear of the Scottish National Party. I do not say that that is the prime motive of every hon. Member. We all know that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has been campaigning for years for some sort of Scottish Parliament, and that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), once rejoiced in the nickname of "the hammer of the Nats". But the hon. Gentleman changed his mind. So long as one does not change one's mind

frivolously or too frequently, there is nothing wrong in changing it.
I am not imputing to everyone ignoble motives, but fear is the prime motive of the Labour Government. If they did not fear that they would lose seats to the SNP at the next election, particularly in the West Central belt of Scotland, they would not have thought twice about bringing the Bill before the House.
It is humiliating that we should not only be wasting our time today but wasting the time of the House for many months to come, when we are in the middle of what is arguably the worst crisis that many of us have known, certainly the worst peace-time crisis, debating an act of political appeasement. The Bill is foolish appeasement, because it would not work even if it were to be passed. It is an act of political cowardice.
I move to some of the reasons why I want to see Scotland left out of the Bill. The first is that it will mean more government. Every party thinks that we are over-governed. Under the Bill we would have six tiers of government in Scotland. This point must be hammered home time after time. The danger is that the arguments are so obvious, so indisputably true, that we shall stop making them.
If the Bill is passed there will be six tiers of government in Scotland—community councils, district councils, regional councils, a Scottish Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament. It is no use hon. Members saying that we can get rid of one tier—that we can get rid of the regions or the districts—because the Government have already said that it is not their intention to do so. We would therefore be landed with six tiers of government, and Scotland would be the most over-governed country in the world. However, that is something which other Members will take up, and I leave that issue there for the moment.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the dangers of over-government and the number of tiers of government. Like myself, he strongly campaigned for Britain's continued membership of the European Parliament, which added another tier of government. Did he allow that consideration to deflect


him from his wish that we should belong to the Community?

Mr. Sproat: No, it did not. We were talking then of five levels of government; now we are talking of six. That goes too far.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Mackintosh rose——

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian will have a chance to intervene later. It is not I but the Government who are proposing six tiers.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Member has bored people to death for years about this. There is no provision in the Bill for six tiers of government. The provision is that local government shall come under the control of the Assembly and that it can be altered by the Assembly. There is no provision for six tiers. The Assembly is not an extra tier but a method of controlling an existing bureaucratic tier which exists in St. Andrew's House. The hon. Member would carry more conviction if he paid more attention to the facts.

Mr. Sproat: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should introduce personal acrimony at such at early stage.

Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Member is used to that. Give us some names.

Mr. Sproat: Not on this occasion. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian says, a Scottish Assembly will want to get rid of another tier of government, but that is not what is said in the Bill. I put it to him that if it is within the power of a Scottish Assembly to decrease the amount of local government in Scotland it is equally in its power to increase it.
We are talking not about what a future Scottish Assembly may do but about the Bill, which adds another tier of government.

Mr. Mackintosh: It does not.

Mr. Sproat: Hon. Members may split semantic hairs as long as they like, but to everyone in Scotland a Scottish Assembly means adding another tier of government. The Government believe that

that is justified. I do not. Whether or not it is justified, it is certainly another tier.
An Assembly will mean more civil servants. Almost all hon. Members believe that we have too great a bureaucracy already, and yet here we are, at one step, adding another 1,000 civil servants by the Bill. Our experience of local government reform—indeed, of almost every reform—is that it increases the number of civil servants. That is another reason why many people in Scotland, as over the coming months they more closely consider what the Bill means, will reject it. The Bill means more government, more civil servants and more expenditure. The Government are desperately trying to cut public expenditure and yet they bring forward a Bill that increases public expenditure, which will inevitably lead to higher taxation.
These arguments have been rehearsed frequently before, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said. Unfortunately, he was not in his place when I began my speech and when I said that it was necessary to hammer home that point.

Mr. Mackintosh: I was here.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member may have been here all afternoon, but if he had been in his place, as he should have been at the beginning of the Committee stage, he would have heard me deal with that argument.
We all agree that there should be more decentralisation. The Bill will achieve not more decentralisation but government centralised in Edinburgh. In my region that is an unwelcome move in principle, and also because we know that any Scottish Assembly is likely to be dominated by Strathclyde, for understandable demographic reasons. At present Strathclyde is Socialist-dominated. I do not take exception to that.
I do not object to domination by the Socialists, because I take the argument above the level of whether the Bill will benefit the Conservatives or the Labour Party. Even if it were a Conservative-dominated Assembly I should be disturbed to find such a small area politically dominating Scotland because it has the most voters in it. The people of my region and the Shetland Region feel that they get a fairer crack of the whip from


Westminster than they would from a Scottish Assembly that will be dominated by Strathclyde, whether through Conservatives, Socialists or Liberals.
Decentralisation will not be served by the Bill. The imposition of the will of Strathclyde would not be to the benefit of Scotland as a whole or to the other regions.
My next point is one of important principle. The greatest reason why I oppose the Bill—why I am moving this amendment—is that I believe that in a Scottish Assembly we are setting up the momentum towards the fragmentation of the United Kingdom. That is why the Scottish National Party wants it. The party openly admits it. It supports the Bill because of the belief that it will be the first step towards a separate Scotland. That is what I seek to avoid.
There are those who say that even if 95 per cent. of the people of Scotland do not want to see Scotland separate—and I believe that that is the number—a small nationalist party could, in effect, lead, drive or nudge Scotland towards separatism. Without our wanting it, Scotland would be edged toward separatism, because everything that went right in Scotland—economically, for instance—would be attributed to the benevolent effects of the Scottish Assembly. That is what certain people would say. For everything that went wrong with Scotland, on the other hand, they would say "This is because we are still partly shackled to Westminster. Get rid of the United Kingdom domination and England and things would go better for us." They would use every opportunity to drive a wedge between the people of Scotland and of England. That is why I am opposed to it.
7.30 p.m.
I believe a Scottish Assembly to be a guaranteed recipe for conflict. That is not just my view. It is not just the view of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members. I want to use this opportunity, in the first debate in this very long debate on the Scottish Assembly, to place on record what other very important bodies in Scotland feel, because some hon. Members, particularly those who sit for English constituencies, may be under a misapprehension. Listening to the SNP and the Government Front Bench, they

may think that all the official bodies in Scotland are in favour of this. On the contrary, that is not so. I want to indicate some of the important bodies that at this stage I want the House to know are totally against what the Government are trying to do to Scotland.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman make amends for continuing to repeat over and over again arguments that we have heard previously, by doing the Committee a favour and applying his amendment to the next part of the clause and telling us why he is in favour of the changes proposed in the Bill for Wales?

Mr. Sproat: No, I shall not do that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait until we reach the next group of amendments and discuss Wales. That is the appropriate time to discuss the Welsh situation.
At this stage I want to get on record in this Parliament what one or two other bodies in Scotland—bodies with which I was in touch this morning—have said. I have in my hand a message from the Chairman of the CBI in Scotland. I shall not read out all of it. I pick out one or two important points that the chairman, Mr. Hardie, makes. He says,
The CBI in Scotland oppose the Government's proposals in this Bill because the motivation for the proposals is clearly political and there would be no advantage to industry from their implementation.
That is his general background feeling about the Bill.
The chairman makes another point about extra government, which I have already made. He makes a third point about extra cost, which I have already made and shall not go into in greater detail. However, the fourth point that the CBI makes concerns something that the House ought to consider very carefully. The chairman says,
The proposals would endanger the industrial and commercial unity of the United Kingdom with obvious threats to the job security and prosperity of Scotland.
This is something—[Interruption.] The hon. Member interrupting from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, will be aware of the changing mood in the trade unions as well. The Chairman of the CBI is talking about industry as a whole and saying that the


Bill is a threat to jobs. Goodness knows, unemployment is terrible enough in Scotland at present. The Chairman of the CBI is talking about the jobs and prosperity of the Scottish people as a whole.

Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the CBI said exactly the same thing about entry or non-entry into the Common Market. Given that we have experience of the value of the CBI's judgment, we know what weight to put on the words that the hon. Gentleman has just read.

Mr. Sproat: That was a ridiculous intervention, considering that we have been members of the Common Market for only a few years. Who knows what the unemployment situation would have been otherwise? Let the hon. Gentleman argue that with his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian.

Mr. Sillars: I have already done that.

Mr. Sproat: The CBI has made another point which is very important and which the Committee ought to bear in mind. It has said,
We regret that at a time when we are gradually emerging from the more serious recession in world trade most of us have known, we should be considering what is potentially the most fundamental and far-reaching constitutional change in the United Kingdom, which must inevitably produce a period of uncertainty at a time when we should be harnessing all our efforts to curing inflation and our present economic ills.
That is absolutely central. It is madness that this country should be spending all this time debating a Scottish Assembly which will do nothing for unemployment, nothing for inflation and nothing for the unity of the country at all; yet we are wasting our time on this and creating uncertainty.
I also have messages from other bodies, such as the Chamber of Commerce. I shall not read them out——

Mr. Gow: Why not?

Mr. Sproat: —because I want to show the Government that I am trying to compress what I have to say as tightly as I can, so that there will be no chance for them to say that there has been any filibustering and that they must introduce a guillotine. We are trying to demon

strate that the Bill is too important and full for anything of that sort.
I conclude by saying that I shall vote against the Bill with everything at my command, because it means simply more government, more civil servants, more public expenditure and more taxation, and in my view it is a guaranteed recipe for conflict which would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: I, too, am sensitive to possible charges of filibustering.
I have something of a premonition that if a Scottish Assembly comes about, we have seen just now the foretaste of the bickering and the kind of argument in which that Assembly may indulge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unfair".] I am not sure that it is unfair. I just hope that I am wrong in that matter, if an Assembly emerges.
I start with a complaint. I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grange mouth (Mr. Ewing), on the Front Bench will not take it amiss. In the Adjournment debate in December, I raised with my right hon. Friend the Lord President the whole question of how the present Government would be represented on the Front Bench during this debate.
With a friendship that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that I have for him, and a respect, too, in this matter and many others, he will not take it amiss when I say that in this kind of debate there should be the regular attendance of certain senior Ministers. The ones we have seen have simply drifted in to inquire of the Whips whether there is to be a vote.
I point again to the impossibility of the task that faces the Lord President. Not only is he Lord President but he is Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Cabinet. He is also Leader of the House of Commons. Anyone who has been a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Lord President knows the multitude of other jobs that he must perform, let alone that he is Deputy Prime Minister in any Government.
Therefore, this combination of being Secretary of State responsible for devolution and Lord President of the Council is a task which is too heavy for any man, however talented.


Because of the sensitivity to which I have referred, of my speaking for too long, I stick to one point only.
That is to try to illuminate an actual situation that would come about, and why it is that I believe that SNP Members are quite right when they say that this is a "first step", a "launching pad", a "moving escalator", towards independence and a separate Scottish State.
Neal Ascherson referred to the Assembly as the pod in which the pea of a separate Scottish State would ripen. All those analogies are well known to the House.
The point I put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is this—and it concerns money, but money is crucial.
Whether or not we like it, there will have to be some kind of annual financial settlement between the Assembly and the House of Commons and the Government in Whitehall. That is inevitable. There is no way out of it, and this has to be done.
But let us just imagine the mechanics of this and what would happen in fact. The Prime Minister of Scotland and the Chancellor of the Scottish Exchequer would probably come to Downing Street or Great George Street, whichever it was, and they would start an annual settlement haggle—or whatever one wishes to call it—for the amount of the block grant. There are several possibilities.
I suppose it is conceivable that they could get a very good deal, in which case they might appear before the television cameras saying "We have been given a very good deal. We have been wholly satisfied." I believe that is an unlikely set of circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) has now left the Front Bench, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) that I was the guest of the Tyne and Wear Council last Friday.
I did not imagine that about 150 councillors from the North-East would turn up at the meeting, nor did I even foresee the vehemence of their speeches.

Mr. John Robertson: Was that the speech of George Lawson?

Mr. Dalyell: Not only George Lawson but Stanley Yapp from the West Midlands

and Bill Sefton from Merseyside. They were the heavyweights of the English local authorities.
If an Assembly comes, those men are determined to ensure that the Scots per head receive no more than the English per head. We know from Kilbrandon that at that time the Scots received £131 of public expenditure for every £100 in England. We know from the latest Answers that we get £119 and Humberside gets £87. That is the present situation. Therefore, the people from the North are sensitive. They intend to ensure that the Scots, if they get an Assembly, do not do better per head than the English regions.

Mr. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dalyell: No, not just now. Later. The English regions have equal problems, including equally serious unemployment problems. That means that even if they wanted to, no Prime Minister in Westminster and no Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great George Street, under the watchful scrutiny of the English local authorities, could satisfy the Scottish Prime Minister and the Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Therefore they would come away extremely dissatisfied, and ironically, come an Assembly, Scotland might get less, not more.
There are two possibilities that follow.

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Robertson rose——

Mr. Dalyell: No, I shall not give way for the moment. My hon. Friend should wait until I have completed the argument.
Either the Scottish Chancellor and the Scottish Prime Minister would bravely defend a settlement that was inadequate in their opinion, in the opinion of their supporters and in the opinion of most of their electors, or they would say "Of course it is totally inadequate". If they said that it was inadequate, the argument is for more powers and an amendment of the Scotland and Wales Act. Let us make no bones—I am sure that SNP Members do not—about the fact that the Chairman of the Scottish National Party has gone on record, quite understandably from his point of view, that he will make every effort to amend any Scotland and Wales Act.
Do not let us suppose that it is any sort of "final settlement" that might have been envisaged in 1974. Let us be clear, in 1976, that no final settlement is possible. There is no "corpus of agreement" as the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) suggested on Second Reading.

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Robertson rose——

Mr. Dalyell: No. Be patient. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to pursue my argument. He knows very well that I always give way at the completion of an argument.
Even supposing that a Scottish Chancellor and a Scottish Prime Minister were prepared to defend the settlement, it is absolutely certain that the Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Assembly and his party would not be satisfied.
The Scottish Chancellor and the Scottish Prime Minister would be accused of getting an insufficiently good deal from Great George Street. Herein lies the certainty of a gradual pressure that will be irreversible and irresistible once a legislative Assembly is set up in Edinburgh.
Once it has gone that far, I doubt very much whether the situation can be reversed. These are the mechanics of the pressures that would exist in every conceivable or likely situation, providing the path to a separate State in Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: At long last. Does my hon. Friend agree that the meeting that he attended consisted of English local authority Members and English Members of Parliament, and that only two or three Scottish people attended it? Does he agree that the conclusions reached at the meeting were predetermined by the sort of speech that he made?

Mr. Dalyell: I am not sure about my oratical powers in swaying 150 hardheaded local authority men and women, I shall make one comment but I must not take up too much time.

Mr. Robertson: Is my hon. Friend going to answer?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes. I shall give a proper reply to my hon. Friend. Let us not be cantankerous about these matters.
I am not happy about the implied argument that he uses. If we talk about the English in the North and the English this, the English that and the English other, we develop an ethnic argument. One of the points made time and again at Newcastle was that among the English councillors were many Scots.
The convener of one of the important committees is as Scottish as any Scot in the Chamber. There were many others who are either half Scots, first-generation Scots or second-generation Scots.
I am reminded of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) on Second Reading. He said that in the Birmingham Division of Yardley, which he represented from 1966 to 1970, there were as many pure Welsh men and women as there are in his present constituency of Aberdare. That may or may not be exaggeration.
All that I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) is that I am bothered about the ethnic argument that is creeping into political discussion on these matters. The people of this Island have been mixed up between Scots, Welsh, and English. Geography does not determine ethnic origin.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I refer to the hon. Gentleman's original proposition, which was that the block grant will produce friction on negotiation. From another point of view, is that not equally an argument for giving the Assembly tax raising powers?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, if anyone could think of tax raising powers that would be acceptable.
It was suggested that there should be a levy on the rates, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows very well that that was made impossible by the understandable objections of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
If my right hon. Friend or anyone else in the Chamber went to a ratepayers' meeting and told it that as a result of our great devolution plans, the ratepayers would have the privilege of paying a rate surcharge, he would be chased into the North Sea. It is up to the Liberals to say what tax they would suggest.
Corporation tax and the payroll tax are quite impossible because of their effect on investment and the subsequent


effect on unemployment. The Lord Home sales tax across the border and in this small Island would not be very workable.
There is the Liberal suggestion of somehow or other taking a layer of the oil revenues. That was put forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party, although he refused to give way when pressed. It seems that the Liberals are saying that a layer of the oil revenues should be used, a system they say that the international oil companies are familiar with in other States.
This is the old game of tit for tat. I do not want to bore my hon. Friends, but once any oil revenues are hypothecated to the Scottish Assembly we shall inevitably set up counter reactions. It will then become Selby coal, English natural gas, Blackpool natural gas and English china clay.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing) rose——

Mr. Dalyell: I am imposing a time limit, hopefully, on every speech I make. But, of course, I give way to a Minister.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend has laid great emphasis on the problem of negotiating a block grant. Does he appreciate that the allocation of resources to the Assembly on a block grant basis was part of the September 1974 White Paper on which my hon. Friend contested the October 1974 election, and on which, I presume, at Keir Hardy House on the Monday following the election he called for implementation of the Scottish Assembly as quickly as possible? We have not introduced anything that is new. It has been there since September 1974.

Mr. Dalyell: I dealt with that matter candidly and at some length in a Second Reading speech. Doubtless my hon. Friend will come back to it time and again in these debates and if he wants me to comment in detail every time, I shall certainly do so. For the present, I would just refer him to my Second Reading speech, to be read in column 1062 of Hansard of 13th December.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that there is much concern in England, particularly the North-East, about the consequences of devolution. But I think

that he will agree that the main concern, particularly in local government, is not about the Scots controlling their own education or housing or about whether matters consequent upon the existence of a separate legal system should be determined in Edinburgh. I have yet to meet anyone in England who feels strongly about that.
The concern arises, rightly, at the possibility of any substantial economic powers being given to the Assembly. That would create a sense of deep unfairness in a single United Kingdom. Hypothecation of oil revenue would clearly give an unfair advantage to one part of the Kingdom.

Mr. Lambie: Hypothecation is Liberal Party policy.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, but no one else is putting it forward. The Liberal Party is not the Government. This is not a Liberal Bill and Liberal amendments are unlikely to succeed without support.
It is not good enough for the hon. Member for West Lothian to say that if powers which neither the Government nor the official Opposition propose and which have no chance of being provided were given to the Assembly, it would be unfair. That may be so, but we are not considering that situation and such talk does not help us to reach a reasonable view on devolution.
Having held many meetings on devolution in England, I accept that there is substantial concern among ordinary people—but it is not passionate hostility. I am asked questions like, "Do people in Scotland want to break away from England?" When I have been able to reassure people that they do not and that the aim is that all problems peculiar to Scotland should be considered locally, I have found that, far from hostility, there is wide agreement in surprising quarters about the desirability of devolution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said that he was against devolution because it would lead to over-government, giving us six levels of government instead of the present five. I have some doubts about his definition of "government". No one would maintain that the community councils are a level of government. They have no powers, they are not legislatures,


they can only advise local authorities. They are exactly the same as residents' associations, but with a statutory basis.
Equally, as yet, the European Parliament and the Commission are not a level of government. We may be moving in that direction and I shall be interested to see whether my hon. Friend supports such moves.

Mr. Gow: Surely it cannot be argued that the European Commission is not an element of government affecting the United Kingdom——

Mr. Lambie: It is not a tier of government.

Mr. Gow: But it is an element. For good or ill, many decisions now have to be referred to the Commission. Does my hon. Friend not think it reasonable to regard it as a tier of government?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not want to get into a semantic discussion, but there is no such thing as a European government, a federal government or anything like it.
But even accepting what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said, that we have five levels of government, what is he actually saying? He is saying that he, along with all who voted for two levels of local government in Scotland, for the Bill which allowed for community councils, most of whom also voted for our membership of the European Community—there was no opposition in this House to the Local Government (Scotland) Act——

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Yes there was.

Mr. Rifkind: I withdraw that: there was no opposition from any party in this House. I accept that some individuals were strongly opposed to the Bill or to parts of it. But no party, including that represented by one member of the Scottish National Party, voted against it. So all parties accepted two levels of local government.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is difficult to divide the House on one's own?

Mr. Rifkind: But the attempt can be made and it can be clear that it has been made, even if it fails. No attempt was

made and it is dishonest of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there was opposition when the Leader of his party, who was in the House then, did not seek to force a Division on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would my hon. Friend accept that there is nothing to stop one member of a Committee calling a Division, even if the result is 54 to 1 against him? There is nothing that the nationalists can do to hide the fact that on Second Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, which they now bitterly oppose, their representative did not even try for a vote against it.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—and that one Member of the SNP was not an insignificant Member who has now disappeared but the Leader of the party. I hope that, although he is not here now, the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will make his position clear, even if his hon. Friends try to disguise it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South says that it is all right to have five levels of local government but not six. That is an arbitrary distinction.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

Mr. Rifkind: In that case, perhaps we should be arguing about which level of government we should dispense with.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Westminster.

Mr. Rifkind: It should not be said that there is hostility to an Assembly because it would lead to over-government. We should say rather: if there is over-government, with which of these five or six levels should we dispense? The community councils are not relevant. There is an overwhelming argument for the Assembly one day dispensing with one tier of local government. That will be within its powers and no one will doubt that it will use those powers.

Mr. Lambie: The sooner the better.

Mr. Rifkind: The sooner the better, as the hon. Member says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South also said that, apart from


the principle of devolution, it should be unacceptable in Scotland because it would lead to the dominance of the Strathclyde region in West Central Scotland, where the bulk of the population live. Quite apart from the party political aspects, into which my hon. Friend rightly did not enter, he should realise the implications of what he is saying.
If it is an argument against devolution that Scotland would be dominated by West Central Scotland, he should consider the implications of that view for the United Kingdom as a whole. In this House, quite properly, of 635 Members, 520 represent constituencies in England. South-East England has 40 per cent. of the total population of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend is getting into racialist arguments about English Members of Parliament feeling as Englishmen feel. They do not act as Englishmen, and this Parliament is different from the Assembly, which will be dominated by Clydeside. My hon. Friend should be behind his lawyers, dealing with the matter in the proper way.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Rifkind: With respect, I am not suggesting that a person from one part of the country will concern himself only with the interests of that part of the country. It appears to be my hon. Friend's view that because people come from West Central Scotland they will set out to attack the interests of people who live in other parts of the country. As he represents a Glasgow constituency, I am sure that he does not take that view.

Mr. Galbraith: I do take that view.

Mr. Rifkind: There is no answer I can make to that interjection. I had better pass on to the next part of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. His final argument was that, if devolution led to strengthening the Union rather than weakening it, why should the Scottish National Party be so anxious to have an Assembly. The answer is patently obvious. Half a loaf is better than none. The SNP is dissatisfied with the present system of government. It wants more decisions to be taken in Scotland. It knows that eight

out of every 10 Scotsmen want to remain British. It knows that a referendum would show that an overwhelming majority wish for the maintenance of the Union. Of course the SNP would prefer to have the Assembly rather than the status quo.
My hon. Friend went on to say that once the Assembly was established the SNP would seek to use it to try to disrupt the United Kingdom. He said that the nationalists would blame the Union for everything that went wrong and would want the Assembly to have more powers. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that those will be the tactics of the SNP, but why does he assume that the Scottish people will listen to the SNP? Why should they believe the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South?
The important point is not whether one party or another complains and sows dissension, but whether it has an audience willing to listen to the complaints, an audience which feels a genuine sense of grievance and believes that the Assembly would respond to its legitimate interests. The overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland wish to remain Scottish and to have in Scotland as great a measure of control as possible over purely Scottish problems.
The amendment is a Back-Bench amendment. I understand that it does not have the support of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I congratulate the Shadow Cabinet on taking the view that, as the House of Commons by a substantial majority voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, the Conservative Party should continue to support a directly-elected Assembly in Scotland and not support the amendment which seeks to have references to Scotland deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: This part of the Conservative Party thinks no such thing.

Mr. Rifkind: The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) are well known. Throughout the past 10 years when the Conservative Party fought for an Assembly he has fought against it. It is not his view to which I am referring.

Mr. Lambie: We all know the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison), but will the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) tell us why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) whose views we know, is here?

Mr. Rifkind: If there is one hon. Member who has never required anyone else to speak for him it is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). If the hon. Gentleman bides his time he will find out exactly what his views are. They will be put forward with my hon. Friend's normal pungency and effectiveness.
It is important that the Conservative Party has decided not to support the amendment. Misunderstanding arose as a result of the decision on the Second Reading of the Bill. The amendment, which goes forward simply as a Back-Bench amendment, will command little support. The people of England and Scotland will realise that the Conservative Party is not hostile to the principle of devolution. We are seeking to ensure a system that will work, meet the aspirations of our fellow citizens north of the border and help to strengthen the United Kingdom.

Mr. Grimond: When I took a straw poll in my constituency about devolution one answer I received was "I can imagine nothing more awful than being run by a party of Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers". That sentiment is felt widely in Scotland. Had the amendment been to take Scotland out of this Bill and to put it into a separate Bill I would have had some sympathy for it.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why his constituents sought to elect to represent them in Parliament an English-trained lawyer?

Mr. Grimond: Quite right. One of the great difficulties is that the Bill deals with both Wales and Scotland. The amendment would wreck the Bill. On the first amendment, that would not be wise as the Bill has received a Second Reading.
I have the greatest reservations about the Bill. I believe that we must eventually give the Scottish Parliament the right to tax. I see appalling confusion in the offing.
We have embarked on this operation under a misunderstanding. The people do not want more government. I am amazed to hear anyone say that we are not over-governed. Apart altogether from the number of tiers of government, the amount of legislation has gone up by leaps and bounds in the past few years. Extra burdens have been placed on local authorities and these have led to the doubling and trebling of local authority staffs and the expenditure of a vast amount of money. What Scotland wants is less and better government, and a focus for its national aspirations. The Bill will not provide either of those requirements.
The Bill is drafted in terms which imply that it is an extension of local government. For instance, it includes the phrase "Chief Executive" which implies that it is simply another tier of local government. That is exactly what it should not be.
There are grave possibilities for trouble. The Secretary of State who will have powers of veto will almost certainly come into conflict with the Assembly or Scottish Parliament—as I prefer to call it. There is a long schedule of measures, some given to the Scottish Assembly, some not, and yet others split between the two. The Scottish Assembly has power to amend Acts of Parliament, but those amendments may be vetoed by the Secretary of State. There are some vague phrases, such as "guidelines". What happens if the relevant member of the Scottish Executive ignores the guidelines? There is reference to "public interest". People have tried time and again to define "public interest" but have always failed.
Let us not throw out the Bill now. Self-government, devolution, Home Rule have been discussed in Scotland for years. It is high time that the Houses of Parliament had a proper discussion about it. In the end we shall have to devise some federal system which is the only method of achieving clear demarcation between governing authorities.
But unless there are major changes in the Bill, unless we have more of what Scotland wants, and unless there are clearer allocations of functions, I shall feel bound to vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is speaking on behalf of his party or of himself?

Mr. Grimond: I am speaking on behalf of my party, common sense, myself, and all the good people of Scotland. I very much hope that the Government will leave the Bill open to a wide number of amendments.

Mr. Sillars: We have just heard an extraordinary statement from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). We require further clarification whether other Liberal Members will vote against the Bill on Third Reading. That would certainly be political suicide for many Liberal Members, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) in facing his electorate if the Liberal Party take that course. I hope that before Third Reading the Liberal Party wil reflect on the wisdom of the course enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman.
The reason I am intervening in the discussion is to seek to answer the spurious point put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). The hon. Gentleman tried to divide the Scottish people between those who live on Strathclyde and others in the rest of Scotland. I am aware that there are some people in Scotland in what would normally be called traditionally Conservative areas who go in great fear of the working class in the West. The concept of Strathclyde is a recent one and was introduced as a homogenous unit as a result of the local government reorganisation in 1973. The Ayrshire people are not in favour of Strathclyde, and the people in Lanarkshire regard it as an unpopular concept as do the people in Renfrewshire.

Mr. Buchan: On the contrary. It is by far the best form of local government we have had in Renfrewshire. We had been suffering from Tory government there for 10 years, and the difference is considerable.

Mr. Sillars: I am talking about Strathclyde as a region. The people of Renfrewshire would have preferred a different type of structure, as I believe would the people of Argyll and Bute. Strathclyde is not a solid block. We should accept that we are legislating not

simply for 1977 but for a considerable period ahead.
I invite the House to consider the demographic changes and the change in the make-up of Scotland because of the economic pull of the North-East following the advent of North Sea oil. There is a decline in the West of Scotland. It has been calculated in a regional survey carried out in Strathclyde that between 1976 and 1980 we may lose 70,000 jobs in the area known as Strathclyde. There will be an increase in the number of jobs in the North-East and obviously considerable changes are taking place in the West, East and North-East of Scotland. If the Scottish Assembly is able to engineer Scotland and its economy in a better manner than Westminster has ever been able to do, we shall see a pull of population towards the borders and a further regeneration of the Highlands. We shall obtain a far better spread in future of the demographic features of Scotland than we have seen in the past.
8.15 p.m.
I do not think that anybody in Scotland need fear what they call the Strathclyde people. I strongly object to reference to the trade unionists of Glasgow. I have a high regard for those people. It was the trade unionists of Glasgow who began the arguments for the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the first place. The idea was born within the forum of the Scottish TUC. When I was employed by the Scottish TUC we spent a substantial amount of our resources—money contributed by Glasgow trade unionists and others—in promoting a highlands conference. Trade unionists in Glasgow have a good reputation for considering matters outside their area.
I turn to the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The arguments he advanced against the establishment of a Scottish Assembly could have been employed against the Common Market and direct elections, and indeed against the establishment of a European Assembly in Strasbourg. It is another layer of government and involves another degree of bureaucracy. It involves the election of further Members of Parliament and all that goes with it. Surely if one is arguing for European democracy, as my hon. Friend did in the Common Market


campaign, those matters are irrelevant. They are the price one has to pay. Similarly we believe that this is a worthwhile price to pay to achieve certain democratic changes inside Scotland for the better government of Scotland.
With the exception of one or two members of the Strathclyde Regional Council, most people in Scotland now acknowledge that once the Assembly is established one of the first priorities will be to knock some sense into the present local government structure. There is a growing consensus of opinion that we may demolish the regional tier altogether.

Mr. Dalyell: May I tell my hon. Friend what experience of the European Assembly in the last 18 months has taught me? It has taught me what happens when an institution such as that has no finance-raising powers. My German and Italian colleagues spend half their time at that Assembly talking about the extension of parliamentary power.

Mr. Sillars: Does not the hon. Gentleman think as a matter of logic that because of political friction between member States in the EEC that body is bound to break up within a period of time? That concept involves nine member States who have been together for only a short period of time, whereas in the context of the United Kingdom we are talking of people who have been together for 270 years. There is surely a better chance of a Scottish-English link enduring in terms of fraternity than there is in terms of a European Community. This is especially the case when one considers the political problems between Westminster under a Labour Government, or Edinburgh under a Labour, Tory, or SNP Government, whereas in Brussels we have perhaps ultimately the bringing together of a Communist Government in Italy, a united front Government in France, a Strauss Government in West Germany and coalition governments in Denmark and Belgium. We also have in that unit whatever kind of government exists in Luxembourg and the Fianna Fail in Southern Ireland. In the EEC there is a very real mixture of potential political friction. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian does not think that the EEC will break up and disappear in a puff of smoke

because of the political heat generated by those varying alignments.
I do not want to be accused of filibustering, and I shall end by saying that if this amendment is carried it will destroy the purpose of the Bill. That is why it should be rejected.

Mr. Galbraith: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind)—I am sorry that he is not here—for getting rather angry at what I thought was his somewhat disingenuous comparison between the size of the English representation in this House and the influence that the industrial belt would have in the Scottish Assembly. I disagree fundamentally that it was a mistake for the Opposition to have a three-line Whip on Second Reading of the Bill. I have had numerous letters from constituents saying that it is good that we should show that we are not just the Conservative Party but the Unionist Party as well.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove Scotland from the scope of the Bill. That will mean leaving Wales in the Bill, which may be regarded as a little unfair on Wales. I would prefer there to be no devolution, but if there is to be, what is proposed for Wales is much more moderate than what is proposed for Scotland, which goes much too far.
If Scotland remains in the Bill, what will be created will not be some modest advisory body, which was considered at some time, nor even a third Chamber to assist the two existing Chambers, as was proposed by Lord Home's constitutional committee as a means of giving a special Scottish dimension to the legislative process. Either of those proposals would have been bad enough, and entirely unnecessary, since we have, in the Scottish Grand Committee, a legislative body that is part of the existing processes of Parliament and which does both jobs, in an advisory capacity and legislatively, most adequately and is certainly better than anything that is provided for England.
But the proposals in the Bill are infinitely worse than Lord Home's proposals. Not only do they set up a legislative Chamber—they set up the whole panoply of alternative government for Scotland, with a Cabinet and, in effect, a


Prime Minister. Although for the time being he may be called the Chief Executive, he will act as a Prime Minister, and it is with the pretensions to being a full sovereign Parliament for Scotland that the Assembly will also be bound to act.
The Government keep on saying that the object of these constitutional changes in Scotland is to preserve the Union. They say in Clause 1 that the provisions of the Bill
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom …".
How can they really say that? How can they really say that? How can Ministers be so naive as to believe it? How can the Government put such faith in mere words? The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) looks startled. We all know that words do not command events. They have no more strength than the paper they are written on, and, so far as preserving the unity of the United Kingdom is concerned, the Bill is a mere scrap of paper which will be torn up by events, because the system of government to be set up under it will be essentially unstable and will easily be circumvented by the Scottish National Party.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill will be a scrap of paper. I hope that he is not suggesting that the people of Scotland in particular and the people of the United Kingdom in general will not obey the law. Once passed, the Bill will be law. It will be in the framework of the law. That is the safeguard for the non-breakup of the United Kingdom. Whatever happens after that, nothing is immutable. There will be changes all the time, and it will be up to the Scottish people and the rest of the United Kingdom to decide what happens after that. But the law is the law, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that the people of Scotland will not obey it.

Mr. Galbraith: I am saying that it is nonsensical to put into an Act of Parliament the statement that these proposals
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
No one can say what does or does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that people in Scotland, particularly in the SNP, are going to say "The Act says

that these proposals do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom and therefore we must do nothing about it"? They will be agitating the whole time.
Why otherwise should the SNP welcome this Bill? If it took the same view of the Bill as the Government foolishly do—that it preserves the unity of the United Kingdom for ever—and if it thought that the Government were right in believing that the Bill is not a threat to the unity of the United Kingdom, surely it would be opposing the Bill as a wicked measure which puts Scotland into shackles. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who is busy preparing his speech, will welcome the Bill. If he believed that these proposals did not affect the unity of the United Kingdom, he would be protesting. Instead, the SNP welcomes the Bill, because it sees that, rather than being a defence of unity, it provides the SNP with a wonderful opportunity to destroy the unity of the United Kingdom and is an ideal stepping stone—perhaps a moving staircase—gradually carrying the country towards separation, as the nationalists desire.
Although I have some doubts about federalism, the dangers of separatism becoming inevitable might be less if a federal solution for the whole of the United Kingdom were being proposed, with regional Assemblies covering areas with genuine identity of interest. That concept would not have led to the creation of one Assembly for the whole of Scotland, set up on nationalist lines. That is what is wrong with this Assembly.

Dr. M. S. Miller: At the moment it is not envisaged that there should be the kind of neo-federalism that he is talking about, but why should he seek to deny the people of Scotland the right to take this first step in the movement which might take place over the coming years?

Mr. Galbraith: I am saying that what is wrong with this proposal is that it divides up the United Kingdom on nationalistic lines. This problem would not have arisen if, instead of the creation of one Assembly for the whole of Scotland along nationalistic lines, there were several Assemblies covering areas with identical interests. There is no single interest in Scotland which can be clearly identified. That is where the hon. Gentleman and I differ. For example, there is


the Highland interest, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) would agree that his Highland interest is different from my Strathclyde interest.

Mr. Sillars: No.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman says "No". He is my Member of Parliament. We must agree to differ. There is a Highland interest and there is an industrial interest in the Midlands of Scotland, and there now appears to be an identifiable interest forming in the outer Islands. That is because very rightly these people fear that an Assembly in Edinburgh will entirely lack the impartial concern for the whole country that Parliament displays. That is the difference between Parliament and an Assembly. Parliament is impartial. No part of Great Britain can dominate Parliament. But an Assembly will be dominated by the central industrial belt of Scotland.
8.30 p.m.
If the separate areas with identifiable interests were catered for by separate Assemblies, if England and Wales were similarly split up into regions, each provided with clearly defined powers and with an appropriate regional—or perhaps I should say provincial—system of taxation so as to create a sense of financial responsibility, and if in addition there was a federal Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom with a written constitution and a constitutional court for effecting change, such a system might just possibly work without leading to disintegration. The whole country would be being treated in the same way. But to take a nibble at the problem of the ramifications of modern government, as the Government are doing, and to do it in a nationalistic context so that Wales is treated in one way, Scotland in another and England not at all, is simply asking for trouble, especially in Scotland.
This is because under the Bill the whole machinery for a separate Government is being set up in Scotland. It is being done in such a way that the demand for change within Scotland will be never-ending. I am afraid that people have been led to hope for a great deal from an Assembly. They have been led to believe that it will be able to deal with

the economic problems of life that assail them as individuals. It is only because of the concern of the ordinary people with the poor performance of the economy and because of the lowering of their financial expectations that they have taken any interest at all in an Assembly for Scotland.
Unlike the founder members of the SNP, the genuine Nationalists of which one—the hon. Member for Dundee, East—is listening to the debate now—[Interruption.] I do not care what party the hon. Gentleman used to belong to. He is one of the genuine dedicated SNP members and I contrast him with the ordinary voter in Scotland who has no nationalist aspirations for constitutional change. The ordinary voter could not be more bored with the subject. He has a considerable desire for improvement in the standard of living. The idea of an Assembly has been sold to him by the hon. Member for Dundee, East and his colleagues as a means of providing just that.
An Assembly will do nothing of the kind. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) seemed to indicate that it would. It will not affect the standard of living in Scotland in the least. The Assembly will be powerless to deal with the financial problems that most people really care about because the Assembly is merely the present Scottish Office writ large.
When people find out that the Assembly can deal with none of the economic problems which worry them they will be filled with a sense of frustration, with a feeling that they have been hoodwinked, that the Government have sold them a pup. That is what the Government have done. This will make them easier targets than they already are for the propaganda of the SNP. There will therefore be public pressure for more and more power to be passed from Westminster to Edinburgh, since the nationalist propaganda that an Assembly will make life better has been largely accepted by the people of Scotland.
The Assembly is regarded by the people of Scotland as a kind of talisman. That is where the SNP has been so skilful. It is a false belief but it is a belief which undoubtedly exists. However, the more that powers are transferred, the more the unity of Britain will


be not so much imperilled but made unworkable. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. I only hope they are able to laugh in 10 years' time. I would love myself to be wrong and them to be right, but I am afraid that the result will be the other way round.
There is a contradiction between the Government's assurances that unity is not affected and the never-ending pressure that will develop for more and more powers to be transferred. The individual transfers of power might not matter very much, but the cumulative effect cannot fail to prove fatal to the Union. It is because of that effect that I want Scotland excluded from the Bill. I can argue that the present system is much better in the way in which it deals with legislation and keeps a check on Government than many people, especially the media, seem to realise. However many imperfections there may be in the present system, it is infinitely better than what is proposed in the Bill. The present system is clear and definite. We know where we are with it, whereas the Bill contains the germs of conflict, disruption and constant change.
In spite of all the time that has been devoted to the preparation of the Bill, the proposals for Scotland are ill thought out, particularly their long-term consequences. But even in the short term it is vastly expensive. There will be more Ministers, Members of Parliament and officials as well as more cost for doing exactly the same job that is being done now with fewer Ministers, officials and Members of Parliament at less cost. It will not be done more smoothly but with increasing bitterness and conflict.
Nothing is more likely to turn the Scots against the English, or the English against the Scots, than to leave Scotland in the Bill. At a time when we are hard pressed financially, the proposals for Scotland are a travesty of common sense.
I am glad that one or two hon. Members for English constituencies have been listening to what is predominantly a Scottish debate. Some of them are perhaps sympathetic to the Bill and do not want to have Scotland thrown out. Perhaps hon. Members from English constituencies will understand the profligacy of what is proposed for Scotland if I tell them that if this same system

was applied to the rest of the United Kingdom it would burden the country with approximately 2,000 MPs. That at a time when many people think that 600 is more than enough.
Scottish Ministers are fond of saying that the matter has been discussed in Scotland for a decade. That is the sort of half truth, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands used, that irritates me. Of course it has been a matter of conversation and limited discussion for that time, but at what depth? I contend that it is only since 1974 that the matter has received any serious consideration in detail and that the more people know about it the less they like it.
That perhaps explains the success of the "Scotland is British" campaign. Until that campaign started, I had no letters at all. But since it started I have had letters from lots of constituents saying "Thank God someone at last has had the guts and the gumption to express publicly what we feel".

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Since the hon. Gentleman claims that the "Scotland is British" campaign is a success, can he explain why he has received some letters in connection with it while I have still to receive a single one despite 20 posters festooning the Dundee area?

Mr. Galbraith: That is one of the difficulties about attaching too much importance to letters one receives or, indeed, to what people say. I quite accept that. On the whole, people are polite. It is not much good writing to the hon. Gentleman and telling him that the "Scotland is British" campaign is a good thing.
I am sorry that some of the writers of letters addressed to me did not know my views. That was a great disappointment. I had hoped that my views were well known. These people were constituents of mine asking "We know what the views are of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but are your views the same as those of the 'Scotland is British' campaign?" I was able to assure them that that was so, and to that extent it is a successful campaign.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman place those letters in the


Library so that the whole House will know what are the views of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)?

Mr. Galbraith: The views expressed about the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) are views that I should have liked to have expressed about myself. They were entirely proper and satisfactory. In any event, I think that this shows that it has been a successful campaign.
I, too, have no wish to filibuster, and I conclude with this comment. Before the time that Scotland and England had one Parliament, there was endless trouble between the two countries. That is a historic fact. I foresee the same happening again if another legislative body and another Government are set up in Scotland.
It is because of the fears which I have for future tranquility as well as in an endeavour to limit profligate use of scarce resources that I urge the Committee to support this amendment to exclude Scotland from the Bill. Let us see whether our existing very good system cannot deal adequately with any real faults which now exist. I emphasise the word "real". Of course, our present system cannot possibly satisfy the nationalists, but I suggest that that is the very best possible reason for retaining the present system and not making the change suggested in the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) when he says that for a decade the people of Scotland have not considered devolution or, much more importantly, a type of Scottish Parliament. I think that they have considered it for much longer.

Mr. Galbraith: The professor of administrative law at Strathclyde University, in an article published in The Times which was circulated to me and, I dare say, to all other hon. Members, said that in fact adequate deep discussions on the effects of this Bill, or, rather, of devolution, were only now beginning. I believe that he was right and that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is wrong.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Hillhead misunderstands me. I am sure that he is right when he says that there has not been any detailed discussion of what is meant by devolution in the present context. However, the possibility of a Scottish Parliament and of Scottish independence has been discussed in the working-class movement in Scotland for much longer than a decade.
If we go into the history of this matter, we find for example, beginning with Keir Hardie, that there has been a very serious and lengthy debate amongst the Scottish trade union and Labour movements and among Socialists in Scotland, and I do not think that it helps the case that I support to pretend otherwise. In fact, it strengthens the alternative case, because the matter has been discussed for many years.
It is very interesting, for example, to see what happened in Scotland immediately following the Russian Revolution. I am sorry that I have to refer to this, because I know that as soon as anyone mentions Russia, the Soviets, or revolution, Opposition Members seem almost to have apoplexy. But they will have to bear with me for a moment, because this is rather important in the historical context of my argument.
Immediately following the Russian Revolution, members of the Scottish working-class movement were very much attracted to the Soviet form of government as it existed at the time. Many early Scottish supporters who believed in some form of Scottish Parliament or, in the case of their greatest advocate, John Maclean, actually believed in a separate Scotland and tried to form a Scottish Communist Party. In fact, such a party was formed. Other Scots were equally involved in the trade union and Labour movements and just as dedicated to the concepts of Socialism in Scotland as was John Maclean, one of whom was his lieutenant, Harry McShane—who, incidentally is still alive, and a very fine old Socialist—who refused to go along that road. They did not follow John Maclean along the path forming a separate Communist Party or demanding a separate Scotland. Harry McShane argued that this was against the interests of all the British working people, whether they were Scots, English, Irish or Welsh. He argued most strongly, on a Socialist basis, in


favour of the concept of a Scottish Parliament, and said that the alternative of Scottish separation was wrong.
8.45 p.m.
The argument has continued in the Labour movement in Scotland and throughout the British Isles for a long time. Keir Hardie was a great advocate of a Scottish Parliament, but he, of course, fought a seat in South Wales and at one stage entered the House of Commons to represent Merthyr Tydfil. By chance, some of the speeches he made during that election campaign have come into my possession. He opposed the nationalists in Wales because they wanted a type of nationalism that had nothing to do with the concept of Socialism. I am sorry if I am boring Opposition Members opposite but to hon. Members on this side this is an argument of great importance. Unfortunately, I do not have Keir Hardie's speeches with me. I would have loved to quote from them. The things that he has been claimed to have said are not the same as the things he did say. Some people put a gloss on the statements of others in order to help argue their own cases if it suits them.
When I looked at Keir Hardie's speeches I found that that which I had been told he had believed was not the same as that which he did believe and argue. He argued for a Scottish Parliament, but fighting seats in different parts of the United Kingdom made him realise that the interests of the people of the United Kingdom were the same, whether they lived in London, South Wales or Scotland. That is the point I want to make as a Socialist and as an Englishman.
I know that some people believe that if one is English, one cannot possibly understand the aspirations of the Scottish people. I take the point made by an hon. Member in an earlier intervention that Englishmen do not tend to think as Englishmen. That is true. But when I said that before in the House I was accused of big power chauvinism. I was told that we English are so superior that we do not recognise this as a fault. It is not a fault. We recognise the United Kingdom as such and we set ourselves up not as Englishmen in the United Kingdom but as part of the overall United Kingdom. That does not mean that an

Englishman cannot understand the aspirations of the Scots or the Welsh.
Over the years, I have read a great deal of Scottish poetry. I found it somewhat difficult, because I needed an English translation to help me understand it. That was regrettable, because without reading in the Scots dialect—a genuine dialect and not a bastardised English—one does not get the flavour of the poetry. The poems of Robert Burns are among the greatest ever written. We should never forget that wonderful line:
A man's a man for a' that.
I remember reading a trilogy of books called "A Scots Quair", written by Lewis Grassic Gibbon, who, under the name J. Leslie Mitchell, wrote "Spartacus"—the finest book ever written about the Roman slave revolt. I have also read as much as possible of Scott and other Scottish authors over the years.
I was stationed in Glasgow for part of the war and I got to know the Scottish people. I admit that they are different in many ways. They have they own dialect, which it took me a long time to understand. The Glasgow dialect is different from that of other parts of Scotland. A Glaswegian would need a translator to understand some of the things said by a person from the North of Scotland. The intonations are not always the same.
I understand that there are five cultures in Scotland. I know of two. There is a powerful Irish influence in Scotland, and the Roman Catholic Church has great influence. That Church is, in turn, influenced by the Calvinists. Many Catholics do not drink—although I admit that many Catholics and Calvinists drink a great deal. But this is an indication of the interaction of Churches and cultures.
Scotland is not a complete entity; there are a number of Scotlands, as has been proved in the arguments over North Sea oil.

Mr. Sillars: Are there not also a number of Englands?

Dr. M. S. Miller: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's argument and the information that he is giving the House. I agree with him on many points, and basically we are not that far apart. However, I was surprised to hear him say that an Englishman does not think as an Englishman. He mentioned the sort of


chauvinism that has developed in England. Does he realise that Englishmen not only think as Englishmen as a matter of instinct; they also have the annoying habit of referring to Scotsmen and Welshmen as Englishmen?

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend not agree that Keir Hardie had nothing to do with some of the misplaced ethnic arguments that we are now getting from unexpected quarters?

Mr. Heffer: I shall attempt to deal with those three interventions. I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that there are many Englands. A Cornishman considers himself different from the people in other parts of England. The Geordies are much influenced by the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Danes. Many Geordie names have Norse roots. There is a different type of Englishman in the North-East.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: What authority has the hon. Gentleman for saying that? As the only Geordie in the Chamber, I tell him that he is talking absolute rubbish. We are Englishmen. I attended a conference in Newcastle last weekend, when the entire Socialist Party in the North-East of England declared itself against the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just come into the Chamber and did not hear the previous part of my argument. He made no serious point. I was saying that we were not just one nation, that there were a number of peoples making up the so-called English nation.
Because of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I have forgotten one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller).

Dr. M. S. Miller: It was that sometimes Englishmen use that word to include Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen.

Mr. Heffer: I agree. That was a point that I was going to make. There has been a serious problem over the years, one for which we are responsible without understanding it. Like many other hon. Members, I have seen some of the 1940

war films of late. In those films there are often references to England when those concerned really mean the whole of Britain. That is wrong. I can understand Scots asking "What the hell are we? Are we not part of it?" One cannot say that the whole of Britain is England. We should always have made clear that it is made up of four parts. It is a very serious mistake that that was not made clear. I entirely accent that argument. It is an important point.
The average Englishman is only beginning to think about the problem of devolution. It has bewildered, confused and saddened him. He has suddenly woken up to the fact that the United Kingdom could again consist of separate small nations, that we could return to pre-unity days, with nations possibly even warring with each other.
I conclude on the note on which I began, with the Socialist argument. In the Socialist movement there is a slogan: "Workers of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains." It is not "Workers of Scotland unite" or "Workers of England unite"; it is a world concept, a universal concept, an international concept.
Another argument that we have always used in the labour, trade union and Socialist movements is that no worker is strictly a citizen of one country; he is a citizen of the world. Working people have travelled the world working, and they still do. That is the fundamental point.
One can understand national aspirations. One can understand people wishing to retain their culture, poetry, literature and theatre. One should encourage that, and develop it to an even higher level. One can understand people wishing to retain their language and to improve it. But that does not mean that when there is a voluntary agreement to work with each other we should do anything to sever that agreement and thereby move backwards in history.
I shall not vote for the amendment, because I believe that the people should have the right to decide the issue by referendum. I have sympathy with the amendment. That is my only reason for not voting for it. There is no other reason. My argument had to be put on a Socialist basis.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I did not intend to intervene in this debate since I made every point that I wanted to make on Second Reading, but I was provoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) who made a speech with which I almost wholly disagree. It was grossly but unintentionally misleading. He did grave damage to the concept of a proper form of devolution and the handing over to the people of a greater degree of control over matters which most closely affect their lives by linking the whole concept of devolution, both in his vote and in his speech, with the concept in the Bill which is malicious, dishonest and is bound to lead to disappointment.
Hon. Members opposite have asked why there should be conflict with a devolved Assembly in Scotland or Wales when there is no such conflict within the European Community. That is a different matter. In many ways the European Community is still fragile. The unity is not as great as many of us would like to see, but it is a unity of countries that have come together and decided to diminish their nationhood rather than a single country beginning to take the decision to split itself apart. That is the big difference.
The second big difference between the European Community and the concept underlying the Bill is that in the Community the ability to tax primarily rests with the nation States. The States have handed over a part of their budgets to the Community. But here we are discussing a system which contains no element of financial independence. This is representation by taxation. The Assembly will be dependent on a block grant from this Parliament provided largely by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom as a whole and therefore, disproportionately, by the taxpayers of England. Naturally, under our system of taxation, for many years the richer have tended to contribute more than the poorer. This has applied to the rating system, and the block grant system there, and throughout Government expenditure and the way in which it is allocated to different parts of the country. I leave that out of the argument. I do not want to repeat it. The figures have been quoted and can be looked up.
We should all have done very well to listen with great care to the words of wisdom of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), speaking for himself, for the Liberal Party, for all good men and true in Scotland, and all the rest. He made the point that there is some serious object to be gained by devolution through some form of federal solution to a national assembly, which he preferred to call a parliament. His choice of words showed an intellectual honesty in himself and the intellectual dishonesty of the measure before us, because he made it plain that the only sort of assembly that could work was a parliament, working perhaps with other national parliaments within a federated United Kingdom, a parliament with all the powers to tax, to raise money and to control its own expenditure, except for the purposes of foreign policy, defence and so on.
That was the implication behind the way that the right hon. Gentleman saw through the difficulty that we are now in. He made it plain—I think that the Scottish National Party has made it plain, too—that the only reason for supporting the Bill is that it might lead to that sort of solution, that the only rational reason for supporting it is a degree of separation, whether or not it can be contained within a federal structure.
I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). I do not believe that there is any possibility of making a sensible federal structure on a regional basis. It is national or not at all, because the danger of conflict which arises out of this Assembly is that it is an elected Assembly, elected on a national basis, and we have heard developing already the chauvinistic arguments. God knows where it leaves me or what my nationality is. I am British and I cannot say anything else.

Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macmillan: No, I shall not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands pretended that none of this was so and that this was just a measure which was widely accepted in


Scotland and welcomed because it would give greater local control and local feeling of involvement. But it will not give that. My hon. Friend was looking only just beyond the end of the passage of the Bill. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that it was very irresponsible of him not to look further down the road on which he is seeking to march us all, because it is at the end of that road that the conflict lies and not at the beginning.
If we have, as we would have if the Bill were passed as it stands, an Assembly dependent for its funds on Westminster, the only thing that it can do is to ask for more, and the pressure will come for a greater degree of independence and a greater capacity to act without the control of Westminster. There is not one genuine power in the Bill that is not subject to the veto of the Secretary of State.

Mr. John Smith: That is not true.

Mr. Macmillan: There is not one power that is not already delegated one way or another to other local bodies. I attack my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands because he is blurring the issue. He is confusing the delegation of administrative powers and the delegation of authority with the setting up of a separately directly elected Assembly. That is the damage that his view has done to his country and his party. It was on the basis that such an Assembly would not necessarily be directly elected that a very great measure of agreement was established in England, Scotland and Wales within the Tory Party and with others who want a form of devolution. It is the bringing in of the directly elected element that has done so much harm to that concept.

Mr. Rifkind: I must comment on my right hon. Friend's final point. He must not mislead the House. He has suggested that belief in a directly elected Assembly by the Conservative Party is some new phenomenon. Before he makes that comment again in public, I ask him to read the recommendations of the Douglas-Home Report, which appeared in 1970. If he reads it—in fact, I assume that he has read it—he will see that it directly recommends a directly elected Scottish convention. Those proposals were accepted by the then leader of the

Conservatives and were included in the election manifesto on which my right hon. Friend fought the 1970 election. At that time I was not a Member of the House.

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend will forgive my saying that I did not fight the 1970 election on that platform. I specifically rejected that element of our political platform. I have never found myself—this applies to many of the people whom I admire most on the Government Benches—bound by party manifestos in every detail. This House would not be as good a place as it should be if that were so. It is the most ridiculous doctrine. It is almost as ridiculous as the doctrine of mandate.
Further, I do not accept that everything that former leaders of the Conservative Party or any other party have done commit a party after defeat at a General Election.
Since the 1974 election is was the difficulty over the nature of an Assembly that enabled us to create a great degree of unity on the concept of an Assembly. We were able to leave the matter until we could see more clearly what emerged from the Bill. In that way we were able to decide what would be our view on the detail—for example, how the Assembly should be selected, and set up.
What I am certain cannot work—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands must think carefully about this—is an Assembly elected directly with the sort of constitution that is now proposed, which does not have more power and does not have the ability to raise money itself. If that is the road that my hon. Friend is going down, let him say so. Let him say that he wants separation with a federal link, otherwise there is the gravest danger that we are putting before our Scottish friends a proposal that will bring great resentment in the English constituencies in due course and will lead to pressure to push different parts of the United Kingdom apart at a later stage, all of which we can avoid by careful amendment of the Bill and a clearer view than most of the House and the country now have of where the Bill, in its detail, is leading us.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith)


said that the Scottish Assembly would be a profligate misuse of scarce resources. In terms of parliamentary time, this debate is a profligate misuse of scarce resources, considering how much time we have to spend on the other parts of the Bill, I hope more constructively.
I am surprised by the attitude of the reactionary, diehard Unionists to this feeble measure. They seem to be scared of what will happen if there is a Scottish Assembly. The Scottish National Party is confident that Scotland is heading for self-government, but that feeling does not seem to be shared by others whether they call themselves Unionists, British or anything else.
Such people are scared of their own society. I should have thought that a confident society would be prepared to change its institutions as required, to adjust them to what is needed and what the public want, but apparently this minor measure causes fearful tremblings among those who are determined to prevent and change, even if the Scottish people want it.
This is a wrecking amendment. There is no need for it. We had a Second Reading debate lasting four days, when hon. Members could express their views. That debate related to the principle of Assemblies for Scotland and Wales, and the vote then should have decided the issue. Those who support this maverick amendment should realise that if they want to cause the maximum difficulty for their Unionist parties, whether Labour or Conservative, the amendment is right way to do it.
There is ample evidence, in polls and in the two General Elections of 1974, that the Scottish people have a preponderant wish for constitutional change—and for change with economic implications. One of the jobs of my hon. Friends and myself in this Committee will be to introduce fiscal power into the Bill to enable the Assembly to achieve the objectives of the Scottish people.
It behoves the Conservative Party to sort itself out. Although supported by one or two Labour Members, this is largely a Conservative Amendment. We do not know what policy the Conservatives have. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) talks of federalism, almost laughing and clapping

at the thought that the Conservative Party may head in that direction. Others are completely against change. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is an elected Assembly, with no independent existence. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) leads the Scottish Conservatives from a position of confusion. He is beginning to be known as the Cathcart Conundrum.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: So that we may get his party's position straight, is the hon. Gentleman opposing the amendment because he thinks that it will lead to a strengthening of the United Kingdom or because he thinks that it will lead to a weakening of the United Kingdom? In other words, does he want separatism or devolution? What is his party's policy?

Mr. Wilson: We have made no secret of the fact that we want independence for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should know that. He talks continually of the British position. Why does he not pay more attention to what the Scottish people want? Why are hon. Members so frightened of the reaction of the Scottish people? Do they not trust the Scottish people? The plain fact is that they do not. They fear that the Scottish people are beginning to go along the road to independence and that nothing that they can do or say will stop them.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. Under the rules of order, hon. Members are required to make their speeches from their place in the Committee and not to walk up and down.

Mr. Wilson: I thank you for drawing me to order, Sir Stephen. That is not a mistake that I was accustomed to make on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill Committee, on which we both served.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Miss Harvie Anderson rose——

Mr. Wilson: If I may be allowed to sit down and not move my position, I shall give way to the right hon. Lady.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The hon. Gentleman said that he is in favour of separation. Does he think that the separation of Scotland will weaken or


strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom, with which the amendment is concerned and about which Clause 1 is written?

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Lady, as a Scottish Member, is making the mistake of paying attention to the United Kingdom when she should be paying attention to Scotland. Independence for Scotland will lead to greater prosperity in Scotland and more employment, and that is the aim of the SNP.

Mr. Rifkind: If the independence of Scotland will lead to greater prosperity and more jobs, how is it that in the last two weeks insurance companies, banks and both sides of industry have rejected independence, maintaining that it would lead to less prosperity and fewer jobs?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is taking a selective view. There have been reports in the Press to the contrary from the organisations that he has mentioned. The hon. Gentleman should try to explain to the Scottish people why successive Westminster Governments have led to increased unemployment and social deprivation in Scotland.
The question of principle was settled by the Second Reading debate. If there are further doubts whether the Scottish people wish to have the proposals in the Bill, or any other proposals, the Government have proposed a referendum. Surely it would be better to settle the matter in that way rather than by this method. I regard the amendment as a wrecking amendment that should be defeated.

Mr. Buchan: We spent four days debating and agreeing the principle of the Bill. The amendment to remove Scotland is, therefore, a wrecking amendment. I shall be interested to know whether those who put down the amendment to remove Scotland from the Bill will support the motion to remove Wales—in which case there will be no Bill left.
There has been wasteful intervention from the Front Bench. Of course the SNP stands for separation. We know that, and the members of the SNP know that, but they are afraid to tell the Scottish people that they stand for separation. They speak of Home Rule, self-government, self-determination, and so on, but they

never say that they wish to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. They say that they are afraid of a referendum question: "Do you want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?".
If I can make myself heard above the hubbub, let me say I do not believe it is proper for Members of Parliament to press for a referendum and, having achieved the promise of a referendum——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has the Floor, it would be helpful if other committee meetings could cease.

Mr. Buchan: It is inappropriate for Members of Parliament to press for and achieve a referendum and then to try to pre-empt the decision of the referendum by removing Scotland from the Bill. The referendum decision was welcomed by many who oppose the Bill. I welcome it as one who supports the Bill.
Grave theoretical errors were made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) who came, was called, spoke, and went out again. As a member of the Government who took us into the EEC, for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the surrender of powers under the Bill was an intolerable insult to our intelligence. He referred to the block grant. How otherwise is the EEC financed except by the block grant? The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is correctly critical of the lack of fiscal powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire was guilty of an even graver theoretical error when he said that even if devolution led to an independent position for Scotland inside the EEC it would not mean separation and independence, because Scotland would be part of the EEC. The hon. Gentleman, either deliberately or through foolishness, has it entirely wrong. Scotland can become an independent member of the EEC only if it first becomes an independent State. The SNP accepts that. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) accepted that in debate with me on the night after the referendum debate.
There is one Member here who I know would give me an honest answer on that point. I know that I could


expect an honest answer from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), to the effect that Scotland, to become an independent member of the EEC, must first become an independent State. By adopting the attitude that they are in Scotland, the SLP is proceeding by stealth, although I would never accuse SNP Members of trying to achieve independence by stealth.
I want to comment on the attacks that have taken place from all parts of the Committee upon the existing regional government in Scotland. The proposition that regional government must go is based on two arguments. The first is the keen centralising ethos of the SNP. It talks about small communities—"communitas". But basically the centralisation at Edinburgh defeats the ethos of communities.
On the other hand, the SNP has its allies on this point within the Tory Party—allies who fear that a devolved Scotland would be subordinate to Strathclyde. The Tory Party fears that there would be a great deal of working-class power in such an Assembly. This is an expression of fear of a working class in Scotland rather than a fear of Strathclyde as an institution.
There are one or two rather nasty implications in this. There is a flaw in the argument that we in Scotland would be dominated by Strathclyde but that that has no relationship to the argument that within the United Kingdom we would be dominated by England. That is giving the SNP its argument. The SNP is totally and stupidly wrong in its argument. For Tories in Scotland to argue that members of the Assembly would vote only on a regional basis, instead of according to the kind of society they want, is giving the SNP its argument. The SNP is not concerned with the kind of Scotland that the Tories want. Its members want the trappings and the psychological pleasure of being an independent State. That is why they want customs posts and border posts. That is why they want a Scottish army and a Scottish navy. That is why they want ceremonial in Edinburgh. They have a psychological need for the trappings and centralising force of State-ism.
Therefore, the SNP uses the argument that Scotland has not sufficient power

within a United Kingdom framework, but the assumption is wrong. Voting does not take place in the House of Commons on a Scottish, English and Welsh basis, or even on a regional basis. We vote according to the kind of society we want to create. That is of the nature of political parties. They are there to reflect not a national, a regional or a local attitude but a microcosm of views about the kind of society which it is desirable to create and maintain. The same would apply in Scotland as applies here. I therefore wish that the SNP would drop that argument.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that the Orkneys, of which he has a close knowledge, and the Highlands and the Borders do not necessarily want the same kind of society as the central belt where he and I live. That is a fact that we must recognise.

Mr. Buchan: I understand that. That is true of larger groups, too. One imagines that when all the London Members meet, arguments are advanced by those who represent Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster, for example, which are different from those advanced by Members who represent East Ham and West Ham. That is why there are different parties—so that we can get a unification of concept to override the differences. There is some good radical history in the Highlands, and the trade unionists in West Central Scotland can give a great deal of inspiration in these matters.
9.30 p.m.
Of course, there are dangers in these proposals. It may be right that the establishment of the Assembly will lead to separation. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and others asked why these proposals are supported by the SNP. They say that the SNP supports devolution because it will lead to separation. That is wrong. The reason why the SNP supports the proposals is that it can do nothing else but support them. It could not be seen as opposing a devolved Assembly. But if one asks SNP Members in private what they would like to see happening above all, it would be that this Bill will become so bogged down in Westminster that it will fall. The likelihood of separation


will come much more from the Bill's failure than from anything else. That is the point that we have reached.
We then have the argument that these provisions will create a polarised situation. The next fundamental error is based on the analogy with the EEC situation. The difference between Scotland and the situation in the EEC is that in the latter case one has nine independent States who argue, discuss and decide matters. That is not a polarised situation. But as between Scotland and England disagreement and tension could lead to a possible split.
I shall be brief, because I hope that we shall all get to bed at a civilised time tonight. Another danger foisted on the present situation is a form of racialism in Scotland. Scotland's most august newspaper, the Scotsman, has been in the forefront of this movement. Letters have appeared in the Scotsman in which the word "English" is used in a racial sense. My wife recently wrote a letter to the Scotsman drawing attention to the situation. Certainly some of the letters that have appeared in that journal could well have appeared in National Front publications if, instead of the word "English", the context had been Jewish, Pakistani or Trish. That is a terrifying development, but not one SNP Member has come forward to denounce it. When my wife sought to draw attention to this situation, she was accused of attempting a smear campaign.
A recent editorial in the Scotsman suggested that there are no racial differences in Scotland, and went on to say that there are no religious divisions there. Has that leader writer ever been outside Edinburgh? Has he never attended any football matches" We surely cannot seek to create a new Scotland without seeking the truth.
The Scotsman has not even a leader writer with any historical background. A leader in that journal emphasised that Scotland must become a nation State because, it opined, every other nation has been a nation State for centuries throughout the world. That is absolute rubbish. There are few nation States in the world today—and, in so far as there are, they came into being only within the last century or two. Certainly in the Third World

they have come into being only within the last 20 or 30 years. In Western Europe the story goes back 100 or 150 years. Such States came into being somewhat earlier in France, Britain and Spain. That kind of nonsensical history terrifies me, because we cannot make progress without truth.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), as spokesman for the Liberal Party, said that unless the House agreed to liberal amendments in respect of federalism and other matters, and, indeed, unless the Bill were fundamentally changed, the Liberals would vote against the Bill on Third Reading. I hope that we shall hear a little more from the Liberals in this matter, because although the Liberal Party has quite a reasonable radical tradition in Scotland, this kind of thing is liable to finish it. There are dangers in what we are doing in the Bill, but there are greater dangers in not doing it.

Mr. Raison: I agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in two respects. The first is on the danger of nascent racialism in Scotland. I thought that it was not very great, but having heard the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I begin to wonder. I thought his speech contemptible. Secondly, I agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West about the risks lying in either course of policy. I think that what he said is true. I do not doubt that, whatever decision the House takes on the Bill as a whole, there will be problems. I believe strongly that the balance of the argument points towards the defeat of the Bill. That is why I am happy to support the amendment.
I wish Scotland to be taken out of the Bill because I want the Bill to fall. I make no bones about that. In approaching this, there is a number of criteria, but I pick out only two, which are crucial and which have been mentioned by many other hon. Members. First, there is the effect on the Union and on the individual member countries; secondly, there is the question whether this scheme, or any feasible variant, is capable of working.
I will not say much about the break-up of the United Kingdom because, if that is not wholly common ground, it is


largely so. I will simply say that I believe that such a break up would be a tragedy and that the mutual benefits which derive from the United Kingdom are vast, whether they be in terms of culture, civilisation, commerce, economics, science, the professions, or family life. In all these respects, we have, on balance, benefited enormously over the years by the creation of the United Kingdom. It has added vitality to our life and to its pleasantness.
I accept the ultimate right of the Scottish people to self-determination and secession. I do not take the view that Abraham Lincoln took about the United States when he said that the only thing that mattered was to keep the United States together. I think that if it were overwhelmingly clear that the people of Scotland, however defined—that would be a problem—really did want to form a separate State, that would be something to which they were entitled. But I do not believe that they do. I also believe that if it did happen it would be a very great loss to us all.
The first and essential question in the debate is whether the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill is more likely to preserve and enhance the United Kingdom or the opposite. We also have to ask the equally important question whether the inherent logic of the structure put forward by the Government is sound. My answer to both questions is a firm "No". It is no good being vaguely in favour of devolution to Scotland as a matter of principle if the conceivable actuality will be damaging. It seems to me that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have not yet faced that question. They think that devolution is in some way or other a good thing, and they have not paid enough regard to whether the kind of devolution proposed would actually work and achieve the desirable objectives.
It is not enough to have this rather lofty view about things. One has to look at the details of the scheme. Here, I defend the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Second Reading. In sharp contrast to the Prime Minister, she looked at the details of the scheme. She was accused of nit-picking. I will put myself in the same category, because it is only by looking at the details that one can really

make a judgment whether this is a viable scheme. I believe that the more one looks at the Government scheme and the more one looks at the Bill the more apparent it becomes that the scheme is not viable and is not capable of amendment to make it viable. The scheme is bad and it cannot be amended to improve it.
I hope that this point will be taken on board, particularly by the Liberal Party. I was frankly encouraged by most of what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said because he seemed to produce a pretty good argument against the Bill. I am only sorry that he did not declare more resolutely his opposition to it and his support for the amendment.
I think that some of his hon. Friends take a different attitude. They are more sympathetic to the Bill. Somehow they believe it is possible to transmute this scheme, which they do not like, into something which would be acceptable to them. The process they have in mind is to convert the whole scheme on to a federal basis. Whatever else one may think, it will be impossible to turn this Bill into a basis for a federal structure. We had a long and interesting discussion about the Short Title and, more especially, the Long Title of the Bill. I am not clear whether we were enlightened as a result. But whatever one thinks of the Long Title, the clauses and any proposed amendments to them, it is not possible to convert the Bill into a federal structure. The Liberal Party might as well recognise that and accept that the Bill is not the vehicle to give them what they apparently want.
The really crucial point we have to get over is that the Scottish provisions in the Bill do not affect only Scotland. They have very important consequences for other parts of the United Kingdom, and that is one of the reasons why I am in favour of the amendment. I believe that those consequences are liable to be very damaging to all the other parts of the United Kingdom as well as to Scotland.
One of the things I resent is that some members of the SNP seem to try to turn this issue into a Scotland versus England war. That is the last thing I want. The whole point of the Union is to preserve and build upon our great tradition of friendship. But I remind the House that


the points I make refer not just to the effects of the Bill on England but to the effects on the other constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
At the heart of it, it affects the whole bargain which is implicit in the Act of Union. After all, it is something which has survived for two and a half centuries. It is not simply a matter between England and Scotland but embraces the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member referred to the actions of the SNP. Is there not a question that should be addressed to that party? Should it not be asked why it holds its major annual political rally at Bannockburn? For what purpose is it held there?

Mr. Raison: That is a fair and pertinent point for the hon. Member to raise.
The Bill, particularly the Scottish provisions, affect the question of representation in Parliament. This point was discussed on Second Reading. It is an absolutely major issue in the whole problem that we are discussing. It seems strange in a way to me that although Scotland has talked about the subject for a decade or more—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) told us that the Scots had been talking about it for much longer than that—the discussion in Scotland in recent years appears to me to have paid little regard to what happens about representation in the House of Commons.
I was talking only the other day to a leading figure in one part of Scotland. He said that the trouble with the English was that we were too late in getting into this argument. He said that the Scots had been talking about it for years, that we had only just awakened, and that we did not understand. I asked him what was the general view in Scotland on the question of representation. Was it right to have Scottish Members voting about English matters, and vice versa? He had not really thought about it. If that is the level of debate that has been going on in Scotland all this time, I do not think it can be claimed that the matter has been exhaustively discussed in Scotland and neglected in England.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: Since our arrival in

the House, the SNP has practised a self-denying ordinance whereby it does not vote on matters of purely English, Welsh or Irish concern. That might be a model for the future.

Mr. Raison: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it does not really matter whether the SNP votes on these issues. There is a much deeper problem that basically affects the Government, and I shall come to it later.
Numerically speaking, Scotland is over-represented in the House of Commons I have no objection to that. It is reasonable that Scotland should have received favourable treatment under the existing constitution as we know it. It is right that one should always be sensitive towards minorities. The fact that Scotland is over-represented is a sign of sensitivity that I thoroughly welcome.
But when we have this devolution scheme, the case is bound to be altered. Some people have argued that this matter could be resolved by simply reducing Scotland—in terms of its representation—to the same basis as England, for example. The Leader of the Liberal Party, talking about this on Second Reading, said in effect that if the number of Scotland's Members of Parliament was reduced from 71 to 56, that would solve the problem. With respect, I do not think that would solve the problem. It still leaves the fact that the Scottish Members will be able to vote on English, Welsh and Northern Irish matters and the converse will not apply.
If the number of Scottish Members was reduced proportionately to the number of Northern Ireland Members—Northern Ireland has fewer Members proportionately than the rest of the country—this would still not meet the problem. The real problem would be that some MPs would be able to vote with regard to the affairs of other countries and the converse would not apply.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) suggested that the answer was a self-denying ordinance. I do not believe that would work. It may be that because of a voluntary self-denying ordinance members of the SNP disappear when we discuss English matters. Good luck to them. I do not mind. But it would be quite different for the Government, and the Government must know it.
What could happen is that the Government could have a majority on the United Kingdom business but only a minority on domestic matters. It would make a nonsense of our system for a Government to bring that into operation. I would be delighted if it applied to the Labour Party because I do not want it meddling with English comprehensive schools, for example and it might not be able to do that if it lost its Scottish Members. But this could not work.
We all know that the Government do not propose to do anything about this. They believe that the present system suits them rather well and they have no desire to change it. As this Committee stage proceeds, I believe that it will become more and more apparent that what they are proposing is completely untenable and immoral. There is no way out of this problem under the structure that the Government are putting forward in the Bill.
This poses a grave danger to the United Kingdom because it will arouse the most enormous resentment. I believe that it will create an anomaly. We already have one with regard to Northern Ireland, which has been an anomaly since Stormont was abolished. That is a relatively small matter. But to build this up into a major matter would be impossible.
The Lord President must recognise that this is so. One cannot operate a system of government which can be seen to be totally and utterly unfair. It is a part of the Government's structure that the system would be unfair, and I think that would be completely unacceptable.
That is the first and crucial point. As I say, there is perhaps an answer which the Liberal Party likes to put forward. It is to have a federal structure. I accept that a federal structure meets the problem that I have been discussing. At the same time, a federal structure is, if not impossible, wholly unsuited to the United Kingdom.
There are two versions of a federal structure which are possible. One is to have the four countries as the four federal units and a United Kingdom Parliament to deal with defence, foreign affairs and United Kingdom national matters. But I do not think that a federation is feasible if one country constitutes 85 per cent. of the total population. I cannot think of

any example of a federation working on that pattern. It is inherently and fundamentally an unsound structure.

Mr. Lee: Perhaps it is not a very happy example, but there is an example of what might be described as a popularly imbalanced federation, which is the Federation of Nigeria. I agree that it is not a very happy example.

Mr. Raison: I shall not go very far——

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee) will not mislead the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) into making a speech which is out of order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech, in any event.

Mr. Raison: There is a problem here, is there not, Sir Stephen? It is not just that Conservative Back Benchers were virtually unable to get into the Second Reading debate. There is a real problem here that this is an amendment which is fundamental to the whole Bill. If we take out Scotland, we destroy the Bill. I do not dispute that. Therefore, surely it is reasonable to go in some depth into the reason why this is an unworkable edifice. I hope that you will not feel that I am straying beyond the bounds of order. However, I will not pursue the example of Nigeria. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) neatly answered his own observation——

The Temporary Chairman: I do not object to the hon. Gentleman developing that argument. But he must not develop alternative solutions.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. We discussed this difficulty earlier today. We debated at some length what could and could not be said and how far hon. Members could or could not go. We were given an assurance from the Chair that hon. Members could go a long way. If any hon. Member wishes to relate the possibility of Scotland being taken out of the Bill to the situation in Nigeria or to the position of Sardinia in relation to France or that of Sicily in relation to Italy, this is relevant to our discussion. We cannot have a proper discussion of matters of this kind


unless hon. Members are able to give these examples. If that is not permitted, our discussion becomes so narrow and so confined that it is impossible to have an intelligent debate.

The Temporary Chairman: The last thing that I want to do is narrow the discussion. But I am anxious that we should not stray too far. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Aylesbury making reference to Nigeria, but I do not think that we should discuss the Federation of Nigeria on this amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Sir Stephen. Earlier today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, there was a long discussion about this difficulty, and some of us said gently that the undertakings which were given, doubtless in all good faith, by my right hon. Friend the Lord President about the scope for the Bill and the scope for argument could not be implemented by him and that they were matters for the Chair. Does not this further make the case for some kind of statement by either the Chairman of Ways and Means or Mr. Speaker himself about what the precise guidelines will be from the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman: That may be so. But that is not a matter for me to decide. Certainly I shall make representations to the Chairman of Ways and Means and to the Speaker about these matters. But it is not a question for me to decide, and certainly it is not one for the Lord President to decide.

Mr. Raison: I accept your implied rebuke, Sir Stephen, about discussing Nigeria. I point out only that I did not discuss it. It was the hon. Member for Handsworth who dragged that country into the debate. But I think that it is reasonable to say a word or two about why I do not believe that a federal solution would work.
Many hon. Members on this side of the House, particularly on the Liberal Benches, have talked about the federal alternative. But I do not believe that the federal alternative sincerely put forward by the Liberal Party and others is capable of working. I do not think that a federation consisting of four countries

is workable for one particular reason—the size of England.
There is another version of the federation, which is to have the English regions plus Scotland, Ireland and Wales. That is not necessarily unworkable but it is thoroughly undesirable. I will not go into why I am strongly against English regionalism, although there is no desire for it, no merit in it, and it would be expensive and damaging in many ways. I will not pursue that because the Bill is not capable of being converted into one providing a regional structure.
This Bill is constitutionally odious to the United Kingdom Parliament and it is incapable of conversion into something workable. One is bound to bring into a discussion about whether Scotland should be included in the Bill the effect of the Bill on the economic policy of the United Kingdom. It is argued, but I do not think that the Government believe, that it is possible to give the degree of economic separation that this scheme would give to Scotland without causing damage to the United Kingdom economy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) pointed out, there is in the Government's White Paper on English devolution a paragraph which effectively puts the lie to that. It is the paragraph which refers to block funds. Block funds are an inherent part of the scheme. The White Paper talks about block funds as applied to English regions and says:
such funds would make the Government's task of economic management more difficult".
I hope that the Minister will answer that point because Ministers' have been singularly reluctant to answer points made during the debate. The Government believe that block funds for English regions would make it difficult to manage the economy as a whole. Why, therefore, will a block fund for Scotland not have the same effect? The case appears to be incontrovertible. The truth is that Scottish devolution would effect the United Kingdom economy as a whole.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Some of us argue that the economic powers given in the Bill are too small. There is a fair amount of mythology about the fact that any limited degree of separation is likely to rupture the concept of United Kingdom economic unity. But if one takes


the example of Stormont—which had greater economic powers than are now proposed for the Edinburgh Assembly—that did not lead to such a rupture, and in the federal systems mentioned earlier it can be seen that economic unity can be compromised with a degree of State separation of economic power.

Mr. Raison: Federal systems are not compatible with the Government scheme and that must be admitted. This Bill cannot be converted into such a scheme and one could not devise amendments to achieve that. I understand the point about Stormont but there is a fundamental difference because Stormont had to behave and knew that it was on a kind of licence.

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Scotland and Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Ashton.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendent be made.

Mr. Raison: I was making the point before that interruption that the Government's scheme has an effect on the economies of England, Ulster and Wales as well as on the economy of Scotland. That is an important point. I am making a general argument that the Bill affects other parts of the United Kingdom— —

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Will hon. Members who do not wish to listen to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) kindly withdraw from the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Murton.
I am not the only one who believes that this effect is inherent in the Bill. The same point has been made by Lord Crowther-Hunt, who was, until a short time ago, one of the Government's advisers in the formulation of their devolu

tion policy. I gather that he is a bit disgruntled and displeased about the way in which the policy has worked out. He speaks with a great deal of experience in this matter since he was a member of the Kilbrandon Commission. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: I have already appealed to the Committee once for quiet, and I hope that I shall not have to do so again.

Mr. Raison: Lord Crowther-Hunt said in an article he wrote, which appeared in The Times just before Christmas:
The Government's consultative document 'Devolution: the English dimension' has all the characteristics of a false prospectus. First, it plays down the extent of the devolution of power now actually proposed for Scotland and Wales; inevitably therefore, it gives the false impression that England has nothing to worry about.
He made a number of other very pertinent and relevant points which I forbear from quoting only because it is getting late. He makes some powerful arguments.
What happens in Scotland under the Government's scheme has a very significant effect on the other parts of the United Kingdom. One of the points which Lord Crowther-Hunt made in a second article, and which other hon. Members have made during this debate, is that the inevitable scramble for resources under the block grant system would be bound to produce very bad feeling. The English would naturally resent what was happening and so would Ulster people and the Welsh, because they would see that, as Lord Crowther-Hunt pointed out, the Scottish people had extra advantages in the scramble for resources. The Scottish people would continue to have their own Secretary of State in the Cabinet. They would also have their own Executive, which would be negotiating with Whitehall on the size of the block grant, and they would continue to have full—some would say overfull—representation in the House of Commons. In other words, when negotiations took place on the amount of money that was to go to Scotland, the Scots would be in a very strong position. It is not surprising that more and more hon. Members from the poorer English regions are beginning to feel very deep resentment about this. I imagine that


this was behind the conference in Newcastle to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) referred.

Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that there might be some kind of advantage to the Scottish people by devolution—although he has not described in detail what that would be—and that he is opposed to the Bill for that reason alone?

Mr. Raison: I do not think that anyone would accuse me of saying that it was for that reason alone that I oppose the Bill. I have advanced a number of other points. That is only one of the reasons why the scheme is unsatisfactory. It would have the effect of producing very bad feeling between the member countries of the United Kingdom. It would therefore be likely to do damage to the United Kingdom, something about which I am deeply concerned.
It is also inherent in the Government's scheme that they are trying to do something which is impossible—to separate economic and social policy. Economic and social policy are bound to go together. The whole purpose of the Government's scheme is to say roughly that social policy will become the preserve of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive and that economic policy will continue to come under the Treasury and the United Kingdom Parliament.
Again, in the interests of time, I do not want to go into these arguments in detail, but it must be obvious that to try to separate, for example, housing from the

general management of the economy is impossible. The Bill itself shows clearly how difficult it is when it states that certain provisions for the fixing of rents should remain with the United Kingdom Government, whereas housing policy as a whole would be given to the Scottish Assembly. There are many other fields in which one can see that there will be a totally unnatural and artificial split caused by the Government scheme. In many ways the economic and social arrangements are bound to produce friction.
It was significant that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), who is one of the two spokesmen on devolution for his party—a Gilbertian, Gondolierian attitude—said on Second Reading that the present suggestion was a
recipe for acrimonious conflict between Scotland and England." — [Official Report, 14th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1363.]
He was absolutely right. The scheme is a sure-fire recipe for conflict between Scotland and England, between Scotland and Wales and between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Conflict is inevitable under the scheme. It is not possible during the passage of the Bill to devise amendments to do away with the conflict which is fundamental to the structure of the Bill.
The House will do a great service to the future of our country if it supports the amendment. We could then settle down, forget about this scheme and come to grips with the real, desperately difficult problems which face us.

Mr. John Smith: We have had a fairly extensive debate on the amendment. Hon. Members——

Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Will you explain what the Minister is doing now? Is he making an intervention or attempting to close the debate?

The Chairman: The Minister has been called to speak.

Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I need clarification on this first debate on such an important constitutional issue.

The Chairman: If a Minister rises it is normal to call him.

Mr. Smith: I have listened with care to the speeches—

Sir Nigel Fisher: On a point of order Mr. Murton. It may not have escaped the notice of yourself or of the Minister, although you have not been in the Chamber recently, that some hon. Members have been sitting here for three or four hours waiting to speak. Since the rule has been suspended it is unnecessary for the Minister to wind up the debate now. It is not only unnecessary but damned discourteous.

Mr. Smith: It is appropriate that I should seek to answer some of the points made by a fairly large number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) ——

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Will you call other speakers after the Minister has sat down?

The Chairman: That depends entirely on whether any right hon. or hon. Member rises.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Aylesbury told us his thoughts at some length. He was frank and said that this was a wrecking amendment. Indeed, his speech was an attack on the whole concept of the Bill and was a Second Reading speech. The same line was taken by other hon. Members who have said that they are totally opposed to the

Bill. Typically, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was supported by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
The speech by the hon. Member for Aylesbury was so effectively answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that I can add little. I was interested to notice the genuine differences which exist within the Conservative Party and I shall be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has to say if he seeks to intervene. [Interruption.] I an not trying to stop the hon. Member from doing anything. I apologise to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) if I am not seeking to oblige him in that regard.
10.15 p.m.
We have had a number of contributions from some who were frankly opposed to the Bill. Their arguments were that the Bill was wrong in principle and, therefore, they would seek to take Scotland out of it. Some of them will no doubt be seeking to take Wales out of the Bill on a series of other amendments. Taking one with the other, this would be completely destructive of the Bill.
I notice, however, that the official Opposition—no doubt the hon. Member for Cathcart will make the matter clear—do not support this amendment. That is no doubt because, as I understand the policy of the Conservative Party, Conservatives are committed to a directly elected legislative Assembly for Scotland, without any commitment to the English regions. I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury will take into account the fact that the policy of the party that he supports here—it has been the policy for some time—is that there should be a directly elected legislative authority in Scotland without, as I understand it, any commitment being made by the Conservative Party to similar arrangements or any sort of regional operation in England or, indeed, anything at all for Wales.

?Mr. Leon Brittan: Does the Minister accept that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was making about the economic matters was dependent not on there being a directly elected Assembly for Scotland but on there being


an Executive with separate financial resources, and if one is not in favour of an Executive the point fails.

Mr. Smith: That was one of the points that the hon. Member for Aylesbury made. I listened to him with care. It was certainly one of his points, but I think that he was on a wider point that one could not make differential arrangements for different parts of the United Kingdom. The Conservative Party proposes a constitutional change, albeit a much more limited change than that proposed in the Bill and one which confines itself to legislative authority for the Scottish Assembly, with such an Assembly being a sort of extended arm of the House of Commons, as I understand it. There are great difficulties in that kind of concept. However, the hon. Member for Aylesbury should remember that the Conservative Party accepted that there was to be a separate proposition for Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made a remark which I think caused some surprise. He said that he thought that the Liberal Party would vote against Third Reading of the Bill. We shall be asking Liberal speakers throughout the debate for some elucidation of this matter, because prima facie there appears to be an odd situation in which a party votes for a Second Reading but against the Third Reading. However, I understand that it may depend upon amendments. Perhaps the Leader of the Liberal Party would care to clarify the matter.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles): Yes, I would. I remind the Minister of State, because of the surprise that has been caused, of what I said at the end of my speech on Second Reading. I said,
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but I say that on the clear understanding that we intend to press amendments on all these points and others in detail in Committee and that if the Bill is to succeed and to make progress through the House the Government must approach these issues with the utmost flexibility." —[0fficial Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1021.]
That remains our position.

Mr. Smith: I understand that, but in that speech the Leader of the Liberal

Party did not say anything about voting against the Bill on Third Reading. That was the difference highlighted in the remarks that his right hon. Friend made tonight. I merely mention that, although it was noticed by a number of hon. Members and has been the subject of comment. No doubt for good reasons, the Leader of the Liberal Party was not able to be present when the remarks concerned were made. I thought that the feeling in the House would be that the Liberal Party's attitude should be clarified if possible.
Many remarks have been made by hon. Members about the effect of the Bill upon the Union of the United Kingdom. I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. Member for Aylesbury about the value of the United Kingdom. It has been beneficial to every part of it. I believe that the vast majority of the people of Scotland, and the vast majority of the people of all parts of the United Kingdom, are dedicated to the maintenance of an effective United Kingdom. It is our case that these proposals do not damage that. With respect to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I believe that his case was a series of assertions rather than a carefully developed logical case.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison rose——

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must give me a little opportunity to develop my argument. Some of it involves a matter of judgment. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong to be so condescending about the level of public discussion that there has been in Scotland. I think that it has been quite high. There is much greater perception of the issues than some people think. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should come to conclusions about opinion in Scotland and how the matter is discussed from random television executives whom he happens to meet.

Mr. Raison: I made a particular point on Scottish feeling about representation in the House of Commons if the scheme went through. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the general Scottish feeling is on that issue and what the Government feel about it?

Mr. Smith: If I am led into these matters, I shall be at the Dispatch Box for a long time. The hon. Gentleman


will remember that we are discussing a particular amendment.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend explain on what Scottish Members in the House of Commons will be allowed to vote and on what they will have the opportunity of voting in regard to Scotland?

Mr. Smith: That is a very wide question—[interruption.] Conservative Members must not attempt to condemn those who speak from the Government Dispatch Box before they have heard what they have to say. It is a habit that they should not acquire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) should know from his reading of the Bill that Scottish Members will be able to vote as Members of the House of Commons on matters for which the House of Commons remains responsible. That is a very wide range of matters. We are often criticised by those who oppose the Bill for various reasons that the powers that will be given to the Assembly will not be significant. I disagree. I think they will be significant. Surely it is necessary only to mention education, health and housing. Those are matters of great concern. No doubt some important matters are retained at the United Kingdom Parliament, such as energy, trade, industry, general economic and industrial policy and employment policy. A very wide range is retained at United Kingdom level for the responsibility of the British Government and the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)rose——

Mr. Smith: No. I am still dealing with the intervention made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Rees: Mr. Peter Reesrose——

The Chairman: Order. If the Minister does not desire to give way, he cannot be made to do so.

Mr. Smith: Surely the House should allow me to be heard. I should be more disposed to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) if he had sat through the debate as patiently as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, to whom I am replying.
I take it that my hon. Friend feels that the Bill presents some danger to the unity of the United Kingdom. This is a matter of judgment. It is my firm judgment that the unity of the United Kingdom will be strengthened by recognising the diversity of its different parts. I am not alone in that opinion. I refer Conservative Members, some of whom might not be willing to take the fact from me, that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), in a very good speech on Second Reading, made that point forcefully.
There is a certain danger in considering the devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales and saying that no change should be made in the machinery of government of the United Kingdom unless some sort of overall scheme is proposed for the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not think there is any intrinsic merit in the proposition that the machinery of government in different parts of the United Kingdom must necessarily advance at the same pace. There is no merit in the implied argument that all changes must be uniform for the whole of the United Kingdom.
We have already found it necessary within the structure of Government to have territorial Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. In the case of Scotland, that is because since the Union there have been enduring national institutions—for example, the legal system, the Church, the education system and local government. These institutions are so different that the British Government have found it convenient to have territorial administrations, albeit within a unitary political system, for Scotland and Wales. We have not found it necessary to do that for different parts of the United Kingdom.
Already in an administrative sense there is a quite different process of government in Scotland and Wales. The critics of the Government's scheme should take that into account.
Another important reason for devolution being desired, especially in Scot land, is that there is the administrative machinery that I have mentioned. However, it is not for a political parallel that we have developed the administrations and created new centres of Civil Service power and authority. We have


not taken a step to bring forward political machinery for control, discussion and criticism to parallel it. The democratisation of the existing administrative machinery is one of the important reasons for devolution and it being welcomed in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Those are fine words, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is the first legislation to affect the voting rights of Members of this House from various parts of the United Kingdom. There is a fundamental difference between administrative devolution and the effect on hon. Members voting on legislation for one part of the Kingdom and not that for other parts.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry that I gave way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended to follow up the point about the democratisation of the administrative machinery. I do not think that he is right when he says that this is the first such Bill but I will let that argument——

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith rose——

Mr. Smith: No, I will not give way to the hon. Member.
We have had a fairly wide debate. In the document on the proposals for English devolution, the Government set out various issues and asked for opinions from England. We have been getting some of that opinion in this debate. The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to a comment in that document about block grants for regional assemblies which would diminish overall control of the British economy. That is a factor to be taken into account. The Government were setting out both sides of the case in an attempt to get informed opinion.
There is quite a difference between a whole series of block grants throughout the United Kingdom and a block fund for Scotland and Wales, because there will still remain under the control of central Government a large part of the expenditure which affects 85 per cent. of the population.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raisonindicated dissent.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not agree, but this is an important point

and I hope that he will think more about it.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raisonrose——

Mr. Smith: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already, and he had a long time to develop his argument.
Although we have had an interesting debate on this matter, I hope that we shall get down to detail. To some extent, this has been a re-run of the Second Reading debate—perhaps necessarily so—and I do not think that many minds will have been changed by the arguments advanced today. In those circumstances, the best service that I can do the Committee is to remind hon. Members that if they carry the amendment they will sink the Bill. Since we recently decided in principle to support it and since there will be an opportunity on the next series of amendments to discuss the Welsh issue, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that those of my hon. Friends who still wish to speak will forgive me for coming in now, but having seen the aggressive look on the face of the Deputy Chief Whip I thought it right that there should be some small speech from the Opposition Front Bench.
Although this has been a useful and constructive debate at a high level—which undermines all the prophecies that we might have destructive sessions—the Minister of State's answer in this first debate was woefully inadequate. Major points of principle were raised by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Certainly the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) has not made a constructive contribution to this or any other debate for a long time. It is shameful that, despite the care with which my hon. Friends have prepared detailed arguments, they have been ignored.
The Minister of State simply said that our fears generally were not justified. In a debate on a wide-ranging amendment which proposes to take Scotland out of the Bill, the one thing that we could have expected from the Government and the Minister was some indication of what good these proposals would do for Scotland. One of the unfortunate features of these debates is that Ministers limit


themselves to saying that our fears are unjustified.
For example, the Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who made a super speech, was simply making assertions, whereas the Minister himself was making judgments. The Minister of State gave no indication of how the Bill will help Scotland.
The main purpose of a Front Bench speech on an occasion like this is to outline the attitude of the Conservative Party and the Shadow Cabinet to the amendment. Normally, that is a great mystery to be revealed, but on this occasion, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) made his own assertions in advance about what that would be and he welcomed it. In welcoming it, he drew a certain assumption. For the sake of the record I must redress the balance. My hon. Friend conveyed the impression that if the Front Bench were to suggest that we should not vote for or against the amendment it would represent a welcome change in our attitude to the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
There is no question of any change of attitude on the part of the Shadow Cabinet. We made clear from the beginning that we would vote against the Second Reading of the Bill and from the moment the Second Reading was approved by a majority that we would be constructive in our approach to the Bill.

Mr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman is dealing with assumptions, perhaps he will tell us what assumption we can draw from the leaflet issued in his constituency of Glasgow, Cathcart in the October 1974 General Election campaign under his imprimatur, which reads as follows:
We will establish a Scottish Assembly to ensure that decision-making is removed from London. There will be a separate Scots budget".

Mr. Taylor: What the hon. Gentleman was reading represented the policy of the Conservative Government that there should be a separate Assembly for Scotland. Of course it would have involved a payment of cash for that purpose. We cannot have an Assembly without cost, as has been made clear by the Government on many occasions. When the people of Scotland discover the precise

cost of the Government's proposals, they will have second thoughts.
Conflicting arguments have been put forward on the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, the proposals for Scotland have grave disadvantages. The question of over-government was not dealt with seriously by the Minister. If the Bill is passed, there will be an additional tier of government in Scotland. We have to see whether that can be justified. Whereas a few years ago a normal constituency in a city might be represented by three people and two tiers, there is now a possibility of five or six tiers and 13 people. That is a real danger.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, there is a threat of the breaking-up of Britain in these proposals. There has been discussion between my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands and others on why the SNP welcomes the proposals for Scotland. My hon. Friend suggested that half a loaf was better than no bread. That is the attitude of some who feel that they might not get a full loaf. There is no indication that the SNP has given up hope of getting a full loaf, but after more detailed discussions on the plan for Scotland support might wither away.

Mr. Reid: How much of a loaf the Scots will get was described in this further leaflet distributed in Cathcart during the last election campaign. It was headed
The Right Way with oil.
It went on to say:
It will be right with the Tories. Scotland first to benefit. We'll get the benefits fast. We'll get rid of the bottlenecks. We'll give Scotland a fair deal with a new tax on North Sea oil profits.
No mention was made of Britain. I wonder how many leaflets went out saying that Yorkshire would benefit.

Mr. Taylor: Everything mentioned in the pamphlets put out in Cathcart—I assume they were Conservative pamphlets—was fully consistent with the Conservative manifesto.
We accept that the Bill has many great dangers, as my right hon. and hon Friends have said. [Interruption.] On the other hand——

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. There is too much cross-talk below the Gangway.

Mr. Taylor: On the other hand, as has been made clear, there are other considerations. First, the Bill has been approved on Second Reading, and therefore it is perhaps right that we should consider it in depth and detail. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, the Conservative Opposition will be approaching the Bill in a constructive way, seeking to improve and amend it. In these circumstances, it would be unfair to suggest that we should remove Scotland entirely from the Bill. That would prevent us from putting forward constructive
amendments.
Secondly, while the Minister of State has said that we have had a full and comprehensive debate in Scotland on the issue of devolution for a long time, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was right to say that the effects of the Government's proposals, and others along these lines, have not been made clear to the people. I am sure that many people in Scotland are not aware that, under the Government's proposals, Westminster Members will not be able to participate in Scottish legislation unless the Secretary of State exercises his veto; Bills will be handled by the Scottish Assembly and not by Members of the House of Commons.
When we are looking at the question of how well aware the people of Scotland are of the Government's plans, the Minister of State will be interested to note that in a poll in the Scotsman a year ago 10 per cent. of those interviewed had not heard of the Government's proposals, while in a poll conducted this year 28 per cent. said that they had not heard of them. Therefore, while the Minister may say that everyone in Scotland knows about the position and has debated it at length, the truth is that the people of Scotland are simply not aware of the Government's proposals and of the severe damage they will do to them and their country.
While I respect the point of view put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, I must say that it might be in the best interests of the people of

Scotland and of the House of Commons if we could have a full and wide-ranging debate about the implications of the proposals, so that when and if it comes to a referendum the people of Scotland will know exactly what is before them.
In these circumstances, we think that the Government could find themselves faced with a boomerang and not a great political advantage. The people of Scotland will realise in the fullness of time, if we have constructive debates on these issues and they are made clear, that the Government's proposals will simply mean more taxation, more politicians, more civil servants and more confusion, with, as far as we can see, no advantage.
It might well be in the interests of those who feel that the proposals for Scotland are wrong, as we do, that we should have this full, wide-ranging debate. Therefore, the Shadow Cabinet would not wish to support the amendment. On the other hand we would not wish to oppose it, because the one thing we would not wish to convey is that in any sense the Conservative Party supports the Government's proposals for Scotland.
We have made it clear that we regard these proposals as objectionable and dangerous. My belief is that if we can get down to the detailed consideration the people of Scotland will begin to realise, as the Conservative Opposition have done, that the Government's proposals are damaging and dangerous, and will bring about over-government and too much bureaucracy. The more we can tell the people of Scotland what the Government's scheme will mean for them and of the failures inherent in it, the better it will be for those who, like the Conservative Party, stand firmly by the Union.
The best way of preserving the Union is to support the policies of the party which stands most firmly by the Union, and to that extent I suggest to my hon. Friends that it might be in the best interests of those who, like us, oppose the Government's proposals for Scotland that we should not pursue this amendment.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has quoted selectively, as Members of the


Scottish National Party always do, from pamphlets distributed in the election campaign. I say to him and his friends that, while I believe that the Government's proposals when they are clarified will be rejected, I also believe that, if the SNP's proposals for Scottish independence are made clear, the peripheral advantage which they have at present and the upsurge in nationalism will be not only undermined but destroyed. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will know that at least I publish pamphlets and make my views clear.
On the other hand, the Scottish National Party has recently taken the initiative in publishing one group of policy proposals about the financial arrangements for an independent Scotland. No sooner had it published those proposals about financial independence for Scotland than that great industry in Scotland, insurance—which is largely based in Perth with the General Accident, announced that the proposals would be disastrous for Scotland. Industry, commerce and banking have said the same. Within a couple of days the nationalists took back their proposals.
I ask both parties not to take up further time——

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reidrose——

Mr. Taylor: I have already given way twice. I believe that if we give the House of Commons and the people of Scotland an opportunity to hear in detail ——

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reidrose——

Mr. Taylor: No, I have given way twice.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reidrose——

Mr. Taylor: I will not give way. It is my belief that the more that the people of Scotland can learn about the Government's proposals the more they will realise the dangers, and the more the people of Scotland realise the dangers attached to the hon. Gentleman and his extremist party the sooner they will not only reject the Government's plan but reject even more overwhelmingly the crazy ideas advanced by the Scottish National Party.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place

and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The debate on this group of amendments has been closed at far too early a stage. I have been sitting here for over three hours waiting to catch your eye, but I have not been successful. We have had what amounts to Second Reading speeches lasting up to half an hour, and it is clear that this serious debate is not yet over.

The Chairman: This matter is entirely within the Chair's discretion, and this debate has taken over three and a half hours.

Sir Nigel Fisher: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I wish to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I have been sitting here for four hours waiting to take part in this debate. The Government suspended the rule only three-quarters of an hour ago, and they now have the gall to apply the closure when many hon. Members have still not had an opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a scandalous abuse of Government power.

The Chairman: As I have already said, this matter is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Crouch: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I submit that the views of English Members have not been sufficiently——

The Chairman: Order. The Tellers for the Ayes are Mr. Stallard and Mr. Coleman. There being no Tellers for the Noes, the Ayes have it.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The names of the Tellers for the Noes were handed in while, unfortunately, you were listening to a point of order. [Hon. Members: "No."] I hope that the Government Front Bench will not say "No". I am


addressing my point of order to you, Mr. Murton, and to the Treasury Bench. At your elbow was one of my colleagues putting in the Tellers while you were listening to a point of order. I am sorry that, because of that fact, you were unable to accept the Tellers, but the names of the Tellers were put in time, and I emphasise the right of the Opposition to register their protest that the Government are applying the closure.

The Chairman: I desire to reply to the point of order. I was on my feet at the time.

Mr. Atkins: (seated and covered): No, with the greatest respect, Mr. Murton. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was standing beside you. I know that you rose

Division No.31.]
AYES
[10.50p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhew, Victor
Page, John(Harrow West)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian(Eastbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham(Crosby)


Brotherton, Michael
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Raison, Timothy


Crowder, F.P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter(Dover &amp; Deal)


Dalyell, Tarm
Jones, Arthur(Daventry)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marten, Neil



Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Rt Hon H.(Stafford &amp; St)
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. George Gardiner and


Galbraith, Hon T.G.D.
Morrison, Charles(Devizes)
Mr. Jan Sproat.


Garrett, W.E.(Wallsend)

NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton(Hackney C)
Jenkins, Hugh(Putney)


Atkins, Ronald(Preston N>
Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J.D.
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Duffy, A.E.P.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel(Heywood)
Ellis, John(Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Kerr, Russell


Beith, A.J.
Ewing, Harry(Stirling)
Kilfedder, James


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Faulds, Andrew
Kinnock, Neil


Bennett, Andrew(Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin
Lambie, David


Bishop, E.S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lester, Miss Joan(Eton &amp; Slough)


Boyden, James(Bish Auck)
Forrester, John
Litterick, Tom


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fowler, Gerald(The Wrekin)
Loyden, Eddie


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Freud, Clement
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Brown, Ronald(Hackney S)
George, Bruce
Mabon, Rt Kon Dr J. Dickson


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Dr John
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim(Middleton &amp; P)
Golding, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell, lan
Gourlay, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted
MacKenzie, Gregor


Cant R.d.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carmichael, Neil
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McNamara, Kevin


Carter, Ray
Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max


Crrtwright, John
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Magee, Bryan


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, lan


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cohen, Stanley
Henderson, Douglas
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cook, Robin F.(Edin C)
Hooson, Emlyn
Moyle, Roland


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newens, Stanley


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike


Crawford, Douglas
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John

to your feet directly afterwards and I know that your attention was distracted. One of my colleagues was giving the names of the Tellers when you were in your seat.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I am the only person who can answer that point, and I was on my feet.

Mr. Gow: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. If the names of the Tellers were given, and if——

The Chairman: Order. The Question has been decided. The Ayes have it.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 30, Noes 162.

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Snape, Peter
Watt, Hamish


Parry, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Penhaligon, David
Steel, Rt Hon David
Welsh, Andrew


Price, William (Rugby)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, James (Pollok)


Reid, George
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Rooker, J.W.
Thompson, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tinn, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Torney, Tom
Woof, Robert


Sandelson, Neville
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wrlgglesworth, lan


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)



Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sillars, James
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Michael
Mr. Donald Coleman.


small, William

Question accordingly negatived.

11.0 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The whole Committee realises, after the first debate on this measure which will be with us for some months, the difficult position in which the Chair will find itself with its successive incumbents, but on this first debate on a series of amendments there has been inadequate representation of some sections of opinion in the House of Commons.
We do not expect you, Mr. Murton, to recognise immediately, in these early days, what that opinion is and where it lies, but I must point out to you that in a debate which was fundamental to the continuance of the Bill, on an amendment which would have wrecked it, only three English Members were called to represent their views on the matter and all of them were against devolution. Not once did we have a chance today to hear the views of an English Member concerned to see that the Bill should proceed.
Passion expressed itself in the way people spoke on this matter. That is right. Time was taken up, and admittedly some hon. Members took longer than they would normally have done in Committee. We recognise that you had to allow hon. Members to speak passionately in expressing their views on this first day when the Bill could have been killed. I suggest that for future guidance it would be helpful if the House knew that there would be room for passion and room for the expression of all points of view as we proceed.
I am the last person—[Interruption.] I address my remarks solely to you, Mr. Murton, because I hope that, as we proceed, you will recognise that many of us want to express a view with passion and are passionately in favour of making progress with the Bill towards devolution in Scotland, in Wales and subsequently in the rest of the United Kingdom. The House of Commons being a mixture of people, some of us feel passionately in that way as others feel passionately against this measure. The temperature here with me is rising. I feel passionately about this measure, and I hope that I have succeeded in making my point.

The Chairman: In reply to that point of order, I am well aware of the problems and also of the passion which has been expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On the motion for the Adjournment of the House I beg to raise the subject of the non-implementation of the recommendations of the Littlewood Report on Experiments on Living Animals. The Littlewood Committee reported as long ago as 1968, and the major burden of its report was that there should be no tinkering with previous legislation on the subject. The Report said that what was necessary—I shall not quote it verbatim—was the total redrawing and replacement of the Cruelty to


Animals Act 1876. Rather unusually, the Committee made a positive recommendation against tinkering with that Act. The Committee said that, apart from a couple of particular items, it would be wrong for the Government to seek to improve the situation within the existing legislation and that it should be totally replaced by fresh legislation.
Since then, successive Governments have done precisely what the Committee said that they should not do and have not done what the Committee said that they should do. They have tinkered with the legislation and carried out administrative reforms, some of them good and well- meaning. But Governments have failed to legislate where the Committee said that they should legislate.
It has been the fate of most reports that I have ever seen or had anything to do with that their recommendations have never been carried out or put into effect. It is rare for anything to be done about the recommendations of the committees that the House sets up, but it is even rarer for a committee to be acted against and to have its major recommendation overthrown, and for the Government to insist upon doing exactly what the committee has said should not be done. That is a question not of non-implementation but of anti-implementation of the recommendations of a committee.
In these circumstances, 11 years have passed by. The so-called Cruelty to Animals Act has never prevented cruelty to animals. It is an Act which licenses the inflicting of pain on animals. It protects from prosecution the people who do that.
In the past 11 years, not only have those who inflict pain on animals—for the best possible reasons, let us assume for the sake of this argument—been given a licence to do so; they have been protected from other forms of remedy. Those connected with animals have been prevented by legislation from pursuing alternative courses of action to remedy what they consider to be wrong. As a result, there has been continuous propaganda from animal societies—some quiet, reasonable and impressive, others perhaps less reasonable and more inclined to shout—but nothing has been done.
I accept that I am venturing into a territory to which I am not accustomed, but perhaps it is desirable that hon. Members should venture into fields in which they are not customarily seen. We should not become too specialised, and become known as arts, defence or foreign affairs men and women.
We may err or repeat what others have said, but when we venture into these strange pastures, we may sometimes bring a new approach to an old problem. We may even be heard with a little more patience because we are not committed in our attitude than if we were speaking on a subject on which we had a committed view and what we wished to say was known in advance.
I am not very fond of animals, but I am against such barbarities as hare coursing and fox hunting; they are defended only by animal lovers. I am a human lover, and it is as a human being that I know that we must not use animals as though we were not animals ourselves. The animals with which we are concerned may be of a lower order than ourselves, but that is all the more reason why we should not degrade or torture them, as the Ac permits. The Act does not prevent cruelty to animals; no prosecution has ever been brought under it. It permits, perhaps even encourages, cruelty to animals.
I am not an anti-vivisectionist. If it can be shown that the human race benefits from experiments on animals, I believe them to be justified, but they ought to be justified and overseen in every case. They should be the exception rather than the rule. As it is, the experiments are carried out wholesale and without adequate supervision. Why is it that what may not be done to a human being may be done to a monkey or a dog, and so on down the scale, until the most terrible things are done to fully-conscious guinea pigs and rats?
There are 5 million unsupervised experiments every year, and in more than 4 million there is no anaesthetic. I used to think that anti-vivisectionists were emotional, hysterical people, who would do better to concern themselves with the pain and misery of humans rather than bothering with animals. I was wrong. There are some hysterical people among them, I have no doubt, but since I have


been studying the subject I have come to the conclusion that in recent years a change has taken place. It is that the reasonable people seem to me to be those who think that there is something wrong. Those who defend the present situation with astonishing passion, even virulence —who pretend that closer supervision of what is going on in some fields constitutes a total rejection of all research—seem to me to be verging on the irrational.
I was brought to study this matter by a constituent who wrote to me, came to my surgery, and finally persuaded me to give it real attention instead of the routine processing which Members are inclined to regard as the appropriate way of dealing with subjects on which they are not expert. Usually it is a reliable way, because the Minister is an expert, or is advised by experts, but this is a classic case where the experts have taken us all for a ride for years. When I say "us" I include Ministers of all parties, not excluding present Ministers.
The experts' attitude is typified by that of the recently-retired Chief Inspector, one of the 14 inspectors who are supposed to ensure that over 5 million experiments are all necessary and done without undue infliction of pain on living animals. Let us hope that they manage to do the job thoroughly, though one may doubt whether it is possible.
Lord Houghton, Lord Platt and a distinguished group set up by the RSPCA have reported to the Home Secretary, making a number of recommendations that fall short of the Littlewood Committee's recommendations in 1965 that the Act should be totally rewritten. The present recommendations are for interim improvements, without legislation.
What has happened? There has been correspondence. The Committee has been abused by the retired Chief Inspector in an article in the New Scientist in such a manner as to give cause for concern rather than to reassure us. The response of the Research Defence Society is also hostile and not constructive.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the human race owes a great deal to animals and to those scientists who have used them to the benefit of mankind. But must the indefensible be defended because good is also done? That is the question that worries me. The general blanket

approval—"It's a good thing"—is more to be condemned than the opposite blanket approach— "It's all a bad thing. None of this is justified." Neither attitude is defensible, but the attitude that it is all justified is even worse than the attitude that none of it is.
Must Ministers write letters, which I, for one, would have refused to sign, pretending that the degree of pain was acceptable in a certain case, when it was admitted that what was called "gross tissue damage" was done to the animals in question? There was gross damage to their eyes, noses, mouth parts and hairless parts of the feet. The rats were killed on humanitarian grounds some time after 24 hours, but the surviving guinea pigs were kept for a week. That was a case in which there was no question of personal profit. It was not one of those cases in which things were being done purely for tests.
I am sure that the motives of all concerned were entirely of the best. I am sure that this was an example of an experiment carried out with the best possible motives. Yet undoubtedly—and it is not denied—the animals were caused great distress and had to be destroyed on humanitarian grounds. Perhaps the experiment was justified. We do not know. Perhaps it was necessary. Perhaps the animals had to go without an anaesthetic. But I agree with Colonel Vine, the retired inspector, about one thing—the Act should be re-titled. It is an Act to permit the infliction of pain upon animals provided the cause is good.
What is a good cause? Are cosmetic testing and weapon testing good causes, justifying the pain and death of animals? We eat them, and that causes pain and death, so perhaps they, too, are good causes.
We need immediate action by the Home Secretary to tighten matters up. We need much firmer use of his existing powers and, simultaneously, the whole matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Science and Technology with a call for an urgent, up-to-date and definitive series of recommendations.
I propose to give my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate an opportunity to do so in a few moments. He is not the Minister who normally deals with these


matters. To that extent he has my sympathy, because I experienced similar occasions when I was a Minister. If the Minister responsible were here I should make my argument stronger than I am able to do in her absence.
What is cruelty? It is hard to define in this context, as the row at the Cancer Research Laboratories demonstrated. Two senior scientists quarrelled bitterly. Scientists have been set against technologists because things were being done that some felt were indefensible and others thought were justified because the cause was good.
Everyone admits that pain is suffered by animals and that this pain is deliberately inflicted. Whether this is cruel or not, can it be denied that to allow animals to suffer unnecessarily is cruel? Unhappily, therefore, we are forced to admit that we have among us some cruel scientists, who should be stopped but who are not stopped—scientists whose cruelty is excused and denied by Ministers because they are working in a good cause.
Does the end justify the means? If we believe, as I do, that means condition ends, something should be done. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that at long last something will be done.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). I am with him all the way. I hope that the Home Office will appoint many inspectors to witness experiments on animals. That would be acceptable to the public. The hon. Member has done a service to the people of the country.

11.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I am obliged to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) for his brevity. I join with him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) on having raised this matter.
My hon. Friend talked about venturing into strange pastures. As he said, so have I for this purpose. In apologising for the absence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, let me say about her that she is personally involved and very interested in the way in which experimental animals are treated and in the

welfare of animals generally. The fact that on some issues she comes to conclusions that are different from those of my hon. Friend does not mean that she is any the less concerned.
My hon. Friend raised the matter in the context of the Littlewood Report. The Littlewood Committee reported in April 1965. Apart from the debate on 11th June 1971, this debate is the only opportunity that the House has had of considering the matter. My hon. Friend raised, on behalf of the animals concerned, the question of their suffering. He raised it not on an anti-vivisection basis but on the basis that we have to take care of and guard the welfare of those animals which are used for the relief of suffering, not only of other animals but of ourselves.
I think that everyone has a great deal of sympathy when my hon. Friend talks about the scale of experimentation. However. I think that he must acknowledge—this is my view; it may not be his—that no scientist involved would not prefer to dispense with animal experiments—or at least those which cause animals discomfort, distress or suffering—if it were possible to do so. However, if we are to make advances in medical science, these are at present unavoidable. Our object must, therefore, be to see that as little suffering as possible is experienced by animals.
Let me deal with three points about the Littlewood recommendations on which I think that there are misconceptions. The first is the view held by some that there is a great deal of duplication of effort, of unnecessary testing, of gross wastage of animals, or of cruelty. My hon. Friend did not directly raise all these points, although he touched on two of them.
It is right to point out that in paragraph 543 of its report the Littlewood Committee rejected these suggestions. It said:
the risk of unnecessary repetition of experiments is small and the scale of duplication not serious…there is no evidence that mandatory tests are retained longer than is necessary…there is no evidence of serious wastage of animals in recent years…there is no foundation for any general suspicion of the concern of licensees for their animals.
I come to the second point that I wish to make. My hon. Friend said, in terms,


"The Act is no good." The Littlewood Committee did not find that the Act was an outdated instrument for the regulation of experiments, nor did it feel that its administration left a great deal to be desired. I should like to quote what is said in paragraphs 238 and 239 of the report:
In present circumstances therefore we conceive the aim of legislation in this field of animal welfare to be three-fold: (1) to prevent objectionable activities; (2) to encourage humane practices; and (3) to provide for the accountability to the public of all concerned.
That is my judgment.
By this standard we think the 1876 Act has been generally effective; no licensees appeared to regard it as a piece of useless bureaucracy; many left us in no doubt of their high respect for it. The Act has been effective partly because it has commanded the ready support of those subject to it, partly because the Home Office has adopted a wide interpretation, insisted on humane standards and administered the law conscientiously.
When we are talking about matters that concern us——

Mr. Hutchison: Mr. Hutchison rose——

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Mr. Hugh Jenkinsrose——

Mr. John: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I did not deal with the point that my hon. Friend has raised, as it seemed that Lord Houghton and his committee effectively dealt with it. I shall not take up any more time now.

Mr. John: I think it is right that the point is on the record.
My third point—this is a matter that my hon. Friend raised in the context of the restriction on the number of experiments—is that the Committee made no proposals concerning numbers.

Mr. Hutchison: Mr. Hutchison rose——

Mr. John: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been left with less than the normal time that is given to a Minister in an Adjournment debate. For the hon. Gentleman, who did not raise the debate, to seek to intervene when he has already taken some of my time is. I think, an abuse of the House.

Mr. Hutchison: Rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Mr. John.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman can seek to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate in the approved way if he feels so strongly.

Mr. Hutchison: Mr. Hutchison rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not desire to waste the time of the Minister.

Mr. Hutchison: No, I do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but any Member is entitled to intervene in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is normally done only by advising the Minister.

Mr. Hutchison: Is that a rule of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a custom.

Mr. Hutchison: I know that it is a custom, but is it against the rules of the House to seek to intervene?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall put it in another way. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, I shall call him.

Mr. John: By the same token, it is well within the rules of the House that anyone who does not wish to give way to another Member need not do so.

Mr. Hutchison: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I call a count.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no provision for a count. Mr. John.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is a disgrace.
I apologise to my hon. Friend. I am afraid that in all the circumstances my dealing with this matter will be rather less than adequate.
My third point is that the committee did not deal with the number of experiments to be carried out——

Mr. Hutchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to call a count.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall read Standing Order 29, which states:
The House shall not be counted at any time.
Mr. John.

Mr. John: I do not know what the provision is for interruptions of this kind but I hope that it may be possible to extend very slightly my time for answering this debate, although I fear that your answer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be in the negative.
I pass on to the Houghton Report, in which I think my hon. Friend has a particular interest. Although a letter has been sent in reply to the memorandum, contrary to my hon. Friend I believe that the recommendations of the Houghton Report would involve legislation. We have no plans to introduce legislation of that kind. That is why we have not moved more quickly towards an acceptance of the memorandum. Nevertheless, it is right to say that a further memorandum from Lord Houghton has been received today by my right hon. Friend. He met the noble Lord today and he is giving sympathetic consideration to the contents of the memorandum.
I shall now tell my hon. Friend very briefly what we propose to do to make progress on this matter. We believe that the 14 inspectors are adequate for the inspectorate, because of the restrictions to which my hon. Friend has referred. Over 90 per cent. of the experiments are performed in about 65 registered places. Therefore, it is possible for the inspectors to visit. Secondly, the advisory committee has been extended by the appointment of four non-scientific members. For

the first time we are referring to the advisory committee a matter of general principle, namely, the question of LD 50 testing. That is the first reference of a matter of general principle. It may well be the sort of development which for the future can help the advisory committee even further to keep its eye open in this sphere.
A matter of concern is the absence of adequate statistics, or of incomplete statistics. My hon. Friend will know from the questioning that he has advanced already that we are moving towards a position in which, during 1977, more adequate statistics will be provided, and that from the summer of 1978, when they are provided, we shall have statistics on a much more thorough or complete basis. From then onwards people will readily be able to understand and to see how much work is going on.
I think that that will be somewhat reassuring to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will feel that what we are doing is moving towards a situation in which——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.